Unpublished Disposition, 928 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1991)Annotate this Case
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. CV 87-6377; Dickran M. Tevrizian, District Judge, Presiding.
Before CANBY and RYMER, Circuit Judges, and LEVI,** District Judge.
Gary Michael Coutin's suit against the President of Hastings College was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The trial court determined that Coutin failed to serve the complaint on the defendants within the time specified by the rules.1
Coutin filed with the district court a motion to vacate the judgment dismissing the complaint against defendant Rose Elizabeth Bird pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).2 The district court declined to vacate the judgment. Coutin appeals.
Coutin has not demonstrated that any of the Rule 60(b) reasons for vacating a judgment exist in this case. We affirm the district court's denial.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4. Coutin's motion for oral argument is accordingly denied. We also deny his request for transfer of this case to another circuit
The Honorable David Levi, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(j) provides: Summons: Time Limit for Service. If a service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint and the party on whose behalf such service was required cannot show good cause why such service was not made within that period, the action shall be dismissed as to that defendant
Rule 60(b) provides: Mistakes: Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied ... or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment