PAUL JOZWIAK V. RAYTHEON MISSILE SYSTEMS, No. 20-17361 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL E. JOZWIAK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-17361 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 4:20-cv-00039-DCB MEMORANDUM* RAYTHEON MISSILE SYSTEMS; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2021** Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Paul E. Jozwiak appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal claims arising from the termination of his employment and benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to serve the summons and complaint * 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). 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 Jozwiak’s action because Jozwiak failed to effect proper service of the summons and amended complaint after being given notice and repeated opportunities and directives to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service and explaining that a district court may dismiss for failure to serve after providing notice and absent a showing of good cause for failure to serve); Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.1-4.2 (outlining requirements for proper service); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 51213 (discussing good cause and district court’s broad discretion to dismiss an action). The district court properly dismissed Jozwiak’s original complaint with leave to amend for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that failed to set forth simple, concise and direct averments); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed de novo); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 is 2 20-17361 reviewed de novo). We reject as without merit Jozwiak’s contentions that the district court was biased. 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). AFFIRMED. 3 20-17361

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.