Reported / Citable
Background
Johnny Ordaz, proceeding pro se, filed a civil-rights complaint against an unidentified DEA special agent. After Ordaz answered the magistrate judge’s questionnaire, he requested additional time to serve the defendant and asked for service by the U.S. Marshals Service.
Although Ordaz was not proceeding in forma pauperis and the court was therefore not required to arrange marshal service, it granted his request on June 5, 2026. The order required him by July 2 to file a completed summons identifying whom and where to serve, along with a renewed request for appointed service. It warned that noncompliance could result in a Rule 41(b) dismissal recommendation.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Brian McKay recommended dismissing the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Ordaz had not filed the required summons, renewed service request, or any other filing indicating an intent to proceed after the June 5 order.
The recommendation reasoned that the case could not move forward without accurate service information for the unidentified defendant. Rule 41(b) permits sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders, and pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural requirements.
Key Takeaways
- The document is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, not a final district-court dismissal order.
- A plaintiff’s failure to supply information necessary to serve an unidentified defendant can prevent the case from proceeding.
- The recommended dismissal is without prejudice under Rule 41(b).
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates that even when a court accommodates a pro se litigant’s request for marshal service, the litigant must provide usable service information and follow the court’s instructions. Failure to do so may support dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute.