Terry Jefferson v. Seattle Parks Dept ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JAN 07 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TERRY L. JEFFERSON,                              No. 09-35854
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01726-RSL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    SEATTLE PARKS DEPT.,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Robert S. Lasnik, Chief District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 14, 2010 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    Terry L. Jefferson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
    his employment discrimination complaint for failure to serve the summons and
    complaint in a timely manner. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    *
    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).
    review for an abuse of discretion. Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 
    253 F.3d 507
    , 511 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling
    because Jefferson failed properly to serve a summons and complaint on the
    defendant even after receiving several extensions of time for effecting service, see
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2) & 4(m), or to show good cause for this failure, see In re
    Sheehan, 
    253 F.3d at 512
    ; Townsel v. Cnty of Contra Costa, 
    820 F.2d 319
    , 320
    (9th Cir. 1987) (ignorance does not constitute good cause).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jefferson’s motion
    for appointment of counsel because he failed to establish exceptional
    circumstances. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 
    390 F.3d 1101
    , 1103 (9th Cir.
    2004) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of
    counsel).
    Jefferson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    09-35854
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-35854

Judges: Goodwin, Wallace, Thomas

Filed Date: 1/7/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024