ORDER

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Plaintiff Belinda F. Norwood, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis on February 15, 2017. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1.) Norwood missed the deadline established by the Court to file an amended complaint by about four months (see ECF Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7); and she missed the deadline set for furnishing the United States Marshals with the required form USM-285 for service of process. (ECF No. 7.) The delay in filing the proof of service prompted the Clerk to issue a notice of intent to dismiss under Rule 4(m) on January 3, 2018, unless proof of service were filed by February 2, 2018. (ECF No. 9.) Proof of service was filed after this deadline, on February 12, 2018. (ECF No. 11.) Defendant moves to dismiss with prejudice, pointing out that Plaintiff has repeatedly missed deadlines and failed to comply with the Court's orders. (ECF No. 12 at 5.) In her response, Plaintiff explained that she did not intentionally engage in delay and made a mistake as to her responsibility to forward the form USM-285 for service of process and had assumed the Clerk did not return that form to her and would forward the form to the United States Marshals. (ECF No. 14 at 2-3.) Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for her delay in effectuating service of process. However, the Court cautions Plaintiff that she must comply with all deadlines and court orders. While pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than lawyers, pro se litigants must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986).

It is therefore ordered that Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is denied.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 15) is granted nunc pro tunc.