Case Name: Robert L. JARRETT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION PRO SE CLERKS OFFICE, in their official capacities; et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-23
Citations: 389 F. App'x 654
Docket Number: No. 09-56032
Parties: Robert L. JARRETT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION PRO SE CLERKS OFFICE, in their official capacities; et al., Defendants.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 654–655

Head Matter:
Robert L. JARRETT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION PRO SE CLERKS OFFICE, in their official capacities; et al., Defendants.
No. 09-56032.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 23, 2010.
Robert L. Jarrett, Jr., Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robert L. Jarrett, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action for failure to effect service of process within 120 days, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 273 (9th Cir.1990), and we reverse and remand.
The district court allowed Jarrett to proceed without prepayment of filing fees, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (authorizing federal courts to allow a plaintiff to proceed without prepayment of filing fees), entitling him to have officers of the court issue and serve all process, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3); Puett, 912 F.2d at 273. The district court abused its discretion by dismissing Jarrett's request for court officers to effect service and then dismissing the action for lack of service. If on remand the district court determines that the complaint survives 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) (requiring the district court to dismiss an action filed under § 1915(a) that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted), then the court should proceed to order service of process under § 1915(d).
Jarrett shall bear his own costs on appeal.
Jarrett's motions filed on October 13, 2009, and November 20, 2009, are denied.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.