ALBERT WILSON V. EDMUND BROWN, JR., No. 16-55058 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUL 17 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBERT P. WILSON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-55058 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:05-cv-01774-BASMDD v. EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., an individual; et MEMORANDUM* al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 11, 2017** Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. Albert P. Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a * 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). dismissal for failure to serve a summons and complaint in a timely manner. 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 Wilson’s claims against defendants Garcia, Dupler, and Irvin because Wilson failed to show good cause as to why he did not timely serve these defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service, and explaining that district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to serve “after notice to the plaintiff”); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause” standard). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider Wilson’s contention that U.S. Marshal authorities improperly failed to serve the complaint because Wilson fails to point to anywhere in the district court record where this issue was raised, and we found no place where this issue was raised. AFFIRMED. 2 16-55058
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
