Shikeb Saddozai v. Peter Nelson ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 18 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SHIKEB SADDOZAI,                                No.    20-16803
    Petitioner-Appellant,           D.C. No. 5:18-cv-04492-BLF
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    PETER NELSON; CITY OF DALY CITY;
    CARLOS G. BOLANOS, Sheriff, County of
    San Mateo Jail; SCOTT KIRKPATRICK,
    Captain, Maguire Correctional Facility; SAN
    FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL;
    ROBERT C. MACKERSIE, Doctor;
    NELLIE MIKULIN, Nurse; CAZANIS,
    Registered Nurse; MARIA JANETT,
    Registered Nurse; DAVID ELKIN,
    Psychologist; MICHELLE REYES, Physical
    Therapist; BENJAMIN RINEY, Police
    Officer, Daly City Police Dept.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 15, 2022**
    *
    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).
    Before:      FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Shikeb Saddozai appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C § 1983 action alleging violation of his constitutional
    rights. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of
    discretion a dismissal for failure to effect service under Federal Rule of Civil
    Procedure 4(m). Walker v. Sumner, 
    14 F.3d 1415
    , 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated
    in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 
    515 U.S. 472
     (1995). We may
    affirm on any ground supported by the record, Jones v. Allison, 
    9 F.4th 1136
    , 1139
    (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.
    The district did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Saddozai’s action
    because Saddozai did not comply with the court’s order, or request an extension of
    time to effect service. See Walker, 
    14 F.3d at 1422
     (affirming dismissal for failure
    to serve where pro se plaintiff did not show good cause for the failure or show that
    he provided sufficient information for the marshal to effect service).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    20-16803
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-16803

Filed Date: 2/18/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2022