Paul Jozwiak v. Raytheon Missile Systems ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL E. JOZWIAK, No. 20-17361
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00039-DCB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RAYTHEON MISSILE SYSTEMS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Paul E. Jozwiak appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal claims arising from the termination of his employment
and benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to serve the summons and complaint
*
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).
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 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 Jozwiak’s action
because Jozwiak failed to effect proper service of the summons and amended
complaint after being given notice and repeated opportunities and directives to do
so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service and
explaining that a district court may dismiss for failure to serve after providing
notice and absent a showing of good cause for failure to serve); Ariz. R. Civ. P.
4.1-4.2 (outlining requirements for proper service); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512-
13 (discussing good cause and district court’s broad discretion to dismiss an
action).
The district court properly dismissed Jozwiak’s original complaint with
leave to amend for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne, 84
F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that failed to
set forth simple, concise and direct averments); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152
F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed de novo); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez),
51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 is
2 20-17361
reviewed de novo).
We reject as without merit Jozwiak’s contentions that the district court was
biased.
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-17361