Case Name: Kevin EZELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-20
Citations: 530 F. App'x 626
Docket Number: No. 12-55274
Parties: Kevin EZELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 530
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
Kevin EZELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-55274.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 20, 2013.
Kevin Ezell, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, 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
Kevin Ezell appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his Americans with Disabilities Act action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir.1984), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ezell's action without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Ezell failed properly to serve defendant. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j)(2) (requiring that a state-created agency be served either by "delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer" or by "serving a copy of each in the manner prescribed by that state's law"). Plaintiffs attempts at service did not constitute "delivery" on defendant's chief executive officer and did not comply with California's requirements for service on a state agency. See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 416.50(a) (stating that service may be effectuated on a public entity by "delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or other head of its governing body"); see also id. § 415.20 (listing the requirements for substituted service); id. § 415.30 (listing the requirements for service by mail).
Ezell's "motion for application for relief," filed on August 10, 2012, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.