UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK we KX YAO WANG, Plaintiff, : : 21-cv-11205 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., : Defendants. VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On December 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff obtained a summons on March 15, 2022. (Doc. 3.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an affidavit of service or taken any other action to prosecute this case. Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, no later than April 7, 2022, Plaintiff shall submit a letter of no more than three (3) pages, supported by legal authority, demonstrating good cause as to why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). “Good cause is generally found only in exceptional circumstances where the plaintiffs failure to serve process in a timely manner was the result of circumstances beyond its control.” E. Refractories Co. v. Forty Eight Insulations, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 503, 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). “District courts consider the diligence of plaintiff's efforts to effect proper service and any prejudice suffered by the defendant as a consequence of the delay.” /d. (internal quotation marks omitted). “An attorney's inadvertence, neglect, mistake or misplaced reliance does not constitute good cause.” Howard v. Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler, 977 F.Supp. 654, 658 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (citing McGregor v. United States, 933 F.2d 156, 160 (2d Cir.1991), aff'd, 173 F.3d 844 (2d Cir.1999)). Plaintiff is warned that failure to submit a letter and to demonstrate good cause for failure to serve Defendants within ninety days after the petition was filed will result in dismissal of this action. SO ORDERED. Dated: — March 31, 2022 i { .. ) New York, New York VO UVUIQU ia VERNON S. BRODERICK United States District Judge