CHARLES F. EICK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES F. EICK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Percy Anderson, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
BACKGROUND
On June 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a “Complaint for Damages.” On September 27, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed an order to show cause (“the OSC”). The OSC required Plaintiff to show cause, within thirty (30) days of September 27, 2021, why proper service of the Summons and Complaint was not made on Defendants in a timely manner. The OSC advised Plaintiff that failure to file such a declaration could result in the dismissal of the action without prejudice. Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to respond to the OSC within the time allotted.
DISCUSSION
Under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss an action without prejudice if the summons and complaint are not served on the defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint or such further time as ordered by the court. See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). Rule 4(m) requires the Court to extend the time for service if a plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to serve. “At a minimum, ‘good cause' means excusable neglect.” Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th Cir. 1991). A court has “broad discretion” to extend the time for service under Rule 4(m), even absent a showing of good cause. See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d at 1040-41; see also United States v. 2, 164 Watches, More or Less, Bearing a Registered Trademark of Guess?, Inc., 366 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 4(m) gives courts “leeway to preserve meritorious lawsuits despite untimely service of process”). A court may consider various factors including prejudice to the defendant, actual notice, a possible limitations bar, and eventual service. See Efaw v. Williams, 473 F.3d at 1041. Any such dismissal should be without prejudice. See United States v. 2, 164 Watches, More or Less, Bearing a Registered Trademark of Guess?, Inc., 366 F.3d at 772.
This Court should dismiss the present action under Rule 4(m) and for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for the failure to effect timely service, and no cause appears from the record. The Court should not exercise its “broad discretion” to extend the time for service. There is no evidence that Defendants have actual notice of this action. The possible prejudice to Defendants resulting from the delay is unknown, as is the impact of dismissal on a possible future limitations bar. There is no indication when, if ever, Plaintiff eventually would effect service.
Additionally, the Court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992) (“Ferdik”). Plaintiff's failure to respond to the OSC constitutes a failure to prosecute. The Court has considered the factors recited in Ferdik and has concluded that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. In particular, any less drastic alternative would not be effective under the circumstances of this case.
RECOMMENDATION
For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered dismissing the action without prejudice.
NOTICE
Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials appear in the docket number. No notice of appeal pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of the judgment of the District Court.