# Albert Wilson v. Edmund Brown, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 17, 2017 · 693 F. App'x 712

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4186831

## Case

- **Full name:** Albert P. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., an Individual; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 17, 2017
- **Citations:** 693 F. App'x 712
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Canby, Kozinski, Hawkins
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4186831

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause” standard

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4186831. Public record. Not legal advice.