Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Shabnam Jufaei filed an action against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is docketed as No. 2:26-cv-05355-AB-BFM. The October 21, 2026, civil minutes identify the proceeding as an in-chambers order to show cause regarding dismissal for lack of prosecution. No attorneys appeared for either side, and the order does not describe the underlying immigration dispute or resolve any claim on the merits.
The court focused on service of process rather than the substance of Jufaei's allegations. It stated that an action must be dismissed without prejudice, absent a showing of good cause, if the summons and complaint are not served on a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed. The court specifically found that Jufaei had failed to file a proof of service within 90 days of the filing of the complaint as to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The order does not make the same express finding as to any other defendant named in the caption. The court therefore identified a discrete procedural deficiency rather than adjudicating the merits of the immigration-related claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered Jufaei to show cause in writing, on or before October 30, 2026, why the action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. It invoked Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962), for the proposition that a court has inherent power to dismiss for lack of prosecution on its own motion. The order therefore initiated a show-cause process; it did not itself dismiss the case or enter judgment against Jufaei. The operative directive is conditional, requiring a written explanation before any dismissal decision is made.
The matter will stand submitted upon the filing of Jufaei's response under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. The court warned that failure to respond will be deemed consent to dismissal of the action. If Jufaei needs additional time to effectuate service, her response must include a request for an extension of time to serve and a proposed order establishing a new deadline to file a proof of service. The order thus identifies both the required explanation and the materials needed if she seeks more time, while leaving the ultimate dismissal decision for later consideration. The without-prejudice characterization applies only if dismissal ultimately occurs absent a showing of good cause.
Key Takeaways
- The court did not dismiss the action on October 21, 2026; it ordered the plaintiff to show cause why dismissal for lack of prosecution was not warranted.
- Jufaei's written response is due on or before October 30, 2026, and the matter will stand submitted when that response is filed.
- The identified service deficiency concerns the absence of a proof of service on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services within 90 days after the complaint was filed.
- A request for more time must be accompanied by a proposed order setting a new deadline for filing proof of service.
- Failure to respond will be treated as consent to dismissal, while the order describes dismissal for the service deficiency as without prejudice absent good cause.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the distinction between a court's authority to raise lack of prosecution on its own initiative and an actual dismissal. By issuing an order to show cause, the court gave Jufaei an opportunity to explain the service delay or seek additional time before deciding whether dismissal was appropriate. Its express warning also makes the consequences of inaction clear: no response will be deemed consent to dismissal.
For litigants, the practical requirements are specific. A response seeking more time cannot simply ask for an extension; it must include both the extension request and a proposed order with a new proof-of-service deadline. The order addresses prosecution and service only, leaving the merits of the action and the final decision on dismissal unresolved. The ruling also demonstrates how a court may use its inherent authority under Link v. Wabash Railroad Co. to police compliance with service deadlines without immediately terminating the case.