Opinion
1:24-CV-00392-DII
07-29-2024
SANDY GIACOLETTY VAQUEDANO et al., Plaintiffs v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS et al., Defendants
ORDER
SUSAN HIGHTOWER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiffs Sandy Giacoletty Vaquedano, Kevin Jimenez Rodas, Daniela Garcia Soto, Graciela Candelas Floreano, Ana Gonzalez Martinez, Maria Hilda Huerta, Sara Martinez Huerta, and Wilfredo Linares Ortiz filed their Complaint on April 12, 2024. Dkt. 1. To date, however, there is no indication that Plaintiffs have served Defendants with the complaint and summons. “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). More than 90 days have passed since Plaintiffs filed their Complaint.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall show cause in writing on or before August 9, 2024, as to why the claims against Defendants should not be dismissed for failure to timely effect service. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) (action may be dismissed for want of prosecution or failure to comply with court order); Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998) (district court has authority to dismiss case for want of prosecution or failure to comply with court order).