Court Opinion

ID: 9408382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 17:01:14.947985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.566543
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 12 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARK F. DURBIN,                                 No. 22-35872

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00200-JHC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF WASHINGTON, as
Respondeats Superior for, with, together, and
employing; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                     John H. Chun, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Mark F. Durbin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to

      *
             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).
serve the summons and complaint 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 Durbin’s claims

against defendants State of Washington, King County, Keena Javier, Kellon Pitts,

Amanda Zerger, and Zachery Boyd, because Durbin failed to effect proper service

of the summons and complaint and did not demonstrate good cause for failing to

serve properly, despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service and explaining that district

court may dismiss for failure to serve after providing notice and absent a showing

of good cause for failure to serve); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (discussing Rule

4(m)’s “good cause” standard).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   22-35872