NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD ALPHONSO ALLEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

CHARLES L. RYAN, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-16505

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-08235-SRBDMF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 16, 2016**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Donald Alphonso Allen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and deliberate 

indifference claims arising out of events that occurred while he was in Arizona 

state prison. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick 

 

* 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).

FILED

AUG 25 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-16505 

v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm in part, reverse in part, 

and remand. 

The district court properly dismissed Allen’s claims against defendants 

Ryan, Rider, Management Training Corporation, and “Capts, Sgts, and Lts of the 

first shift staff,” because Allen failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible 

claim for relief. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (a 

supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the 

constitutional deprivation or there is a “sufficient causal connection between the 

supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by denying Allen’s motion for leave to amend his complaint against 

these defendants because amendment would have been futile. See Gordon v. City 

of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review 

and explaining that leave to amend may denied if amendment would be futile).

The district court denied Allen’s motion for additional time to serve 

defendant Denoyer and dismissed Allen’s claims against Denoyer for failure to 

serve. However, Allen demonstrated good cause to extend the time for service. 

See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) overruled on other 
3 15-16505 

grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483–84 (1995) (“So long as the 

prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the 

marshal’s failure to effect service is automatically good cause” (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted)); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir. 

2001) (setting forth standard of review); Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 273 (9th 

Cir. 1990) (party proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to have summons and 

complaint served by United States Marshal).

Moreover, the district court erred by dismissing Allen’s claims against 

Denoyer as barred by the applicable statute of limitations without providing Allen 

with an opportunity to demonstrate whether he was entitled to equitable tolling. 

See Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273-77 (9th Cir. 1993) (determination 

of equitable tolling ordinarily requires reference to materials outside of the 

complaint and generally cannot be resolved on the face of the pleadings alone).

In sum, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Allen’s claims against all 

defendants except Denoyer, and affirm the district court’s denial of Allen’s motion 

for leave to amend his complaint. We reverse the district court’s dismissal of 

Allen’s claims against Denoyer for failure to serve and as barred by the statute of 

limitations and remand for further proceedings.
4 15-16505 

Allen’s request to appoint counsel, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.