discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause” standard
How later courts described this case
- discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause” standard
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT P. WILSON, No. 16-55058
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:05-cv-01774-BAS-
MDD
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., an individual; et MEMORANDUM*
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Albert P. Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal for failure to serve a summons and complaint in a timely manner.
Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Wilson’s claims
against defendants Garcia, Dupler, and Irvin because Wilson failed to show good
cause as to why he did not timely serve these defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)
(outlining requirements for proper service, and explaining that district court may
sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to serve “after notice to the plaintiff”); In re
Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause” standard).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not
consider Wilson’s contention that U.S. Marshal authorities improperly failed to
serve the complaint because Wilson fails to point to anywhere in the district court
record where this issue was raised, and we found no place where this issue was
raised.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-55058