JAMES WILLIAMS, JR. V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, No. 18-55379 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES DOUGLAS WILLIAMS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-55379 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-06130-MWF-KS v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. James Douglas Williams, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his Title VII employment action for failure to effect timely and proper service of the summons and complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of * 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). discretion. 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 Williams’s action without prejudice because Williams failed to effect proper service of the summons and complaint and otherwise failed to show good cause for his failure to timely serve the summons and complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) (any person who is not a party may serve a summons and complaint); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j) (setting forth how to serve a state or local government); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring court to dismiss action without prejudice if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed absent a showing of good cause); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause” standard). Contrary to Williams’s contention, his action was not dismissed for failure to file an opposition to the County defendants’ motion to dismiss, which he did not receive. We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Williams’s motion for reconsideration because Williams failed to file an amended or separate notice of appeal. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007). AFFIRMED. 2 18-55379
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.
