Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Malgorzata Jaroszuk filed a civil action against Meta Platforms, Inc. in the Northern District of California, alleging claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, identity theft, negligence, and invasion of privacy. On July 2, 2026, the court granted her application to proceed in forma pauperis and directed her to file a proposed summons so the U.S. Marshal could serve the summons and complaint. Jaroszuk submitted a proposed summons, but it omitted her contact information from the section for the plaintiff’s name and address. The court therefore ordered her to refile it with the missing information by September 16, 2026.
Jaroszuk did not refile the summons. On October 5, the court ordered her to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and directed her to submit a written response and file the summons by October 26. The following day, she filed a document titled “motion to supplement” seeking removal or replacement of Meta’s Board of Directors. She did not, however, respond to the show-cause order or file the required summons. The November 3, 2026 dismissal order addressed those procedural failures; it did not decide the merits of her claims or grant the requested board relief.
The Court’s Holding
The court first held that dismissal without prejudice was required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). That rule generally requires dismissal without prejudice, or an order setting a specified time for service, when a defendant has not been served within 90 days after the complaint was filed. The court had twice extended the service period and ordered Jaroszuk to file the summons. More than 130 days had passed since she commenced the action, yet she had neither supplied the summons needed for the Marshals to effect service nor otherwise served the summons and complaint.
The court independently dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with its orders under Rule 41(b). Applying the Henderson factors, it found that Jaroszuk’s noncompliance delayed adjudication, implicating the public interest in expeditious resolution and the court’s need to manage its docket. It also found that the delay caused by her failure to prosecute despite court orders supported dismissal as to prejudice. The court further reasoned that extending the summons deadline and expressly warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal satisfied its obligation to consider less drastic measures and warn that dismissal was imminent.
The public policy favoring disposition on the merits weighed against dismissal, as it ordinarily does. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the other four factors weighed strongly in favor of dismissing the action in its entirety. It therefore dismissed the case without prejudice under both Rules 4(m) and 41(b). The disposition ended this action without an adjudication of the underlying allegations.
Key Takeaways
- An in forma pauperis plaintiff must still provide the summons necessary for U.S. Marshal service and comply with the court’s service directions.
- Rule 4(m) supported dismissal because more than 130 days had passed without service despite two extensions and repeated orders to file the summons.
- Rule 41(b) supplied an independent basis for dismissal after Jaroszuk failed to prosecute the action, comply with court orders, or respond to the show-cause order.
- The court’s deadline extensions and express warning of dismissal supported its conclusion that less drastic sanctions had been considered before dismissal.
- The policy favoring decisions on the merits weighed against dismissal, but the other four Henderson factors supported dismissing the entire action without prejudice.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how Rule 4(m) and Rule 41(b) can independently support dismissal when a case stalls before service. The court did not treat in forma pauperis status or Marshal service as eliminating the plaintiff’s responsibility to submit the required summons and follow procedural orders. Its analysis also shows the function of a show-cause order: it provided notice and an opportunity to respond before the court imposed dismissal.
The decision is procedural rather than a ruling on Jaroszuk’s allegations against Meta. It applies the Ninth Circuit’s Henderson framework to sustained noncompliance, while acknowledging that the preference for merits disposition cuts against dismissal. The without-prejudice disposition and the absence of any ruling on the motion concerning Meta’s board define the order’s actual scope.