Albert Wilson v. Edmund Brown, Jr. , 693 F. App'x 712 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-55058

Citation Numbers: 693 F. App'x 712

Judges: Canby, Kozinski, Hawkins

Filed Date: 7/17/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024