If Plaintiff fails to respond to this order by March 22, 2024, the Court may treat his noncompliance as a failure to serve and may dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). See Smalls v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-3017 (RRM) (RLM), 2019 WL 1243823, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019); see also Smith v. Ford Motor Co., No. 07-CV-422S, 2009 WL 2448472, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2009) (“To determine whether good cause exists, a court considers whether plaintiff made reasonable efforts to serve defendant and whether defendant has been prejudiced by the delay.”).

The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff's counsel's neglect in failing effectively to serve Defendant is not a showing of good cause, and the Court would have dismissed the action without prejudice as required by Rule 4(m) if necessary. See Smalls v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-3017, 2019 WL 1243823, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019) (“Prolonged attorney neglect is not . . . an excuse [for failure to timely serve.]”); Zapata v. City of New York, 502 F.3d 192, 199 (2d Cir. 2007) (upholding the district court's refusal to extend time where the represented plaintiff “made no effort to effect service within the service period” and “neglected to ask for an extension within a reasonable period of time”).

The Court hereby gives Plaintiff notice that it may dismiss his claims pursuant to Rule 4(m) if he is unable to show good cause for the failure. See Smalls v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-3017, 2019 WL 1243823, at *2, *4, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43974, at *7, *12 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18. 2019) (treating order to show cause for failure to serve a defendant as “the notice required before a dismissal pursuant to Rule 4(m)”). Plaintiff's failure to establish good cause for failing to effectuate service on the eight remaining Defendants will result in the dismissal, without prejudice, of all of his remaining claims.

Salim v. County of Erie, No. 15-CV-418A(SR), 2018 WL 7133268, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2018) (citing Jordan v. Forfeiture Support Assocs., 928 F. Supp. 2d 588, 597 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 330762 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2019). "[A] plaintiff's pro se status is no excuse for failure to serve the defendant properly and does not automatically amount to good cause for failure to serve within the time allotted by Rule 4(m). . . ." Jordan, 928 F. Supp. 2d at 598; see Smalls v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-3017 (RRM) (RLM), 2019 WL 1243823, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019) ("[W]ith respect to pro se plaintiffs, neither mistake nor plain ignorance constitutes good cause."); Cassano v. Altshuler, 186 F. Supp. 3d 318, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("[I]gnorance or confusion, even in the case of a pro se plaintiff, do not constitute good cause.").