From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Uhuru v. Khan

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 402
Aug 4, 2008
288 F. App'x 401 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 06-56041.

Submitted July 22, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed August 4, 2008.

Diallo E. Uhuru, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.

Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-02574-JAH.

Before: B. FLECTCHER, THOMAS and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


California state prisoner Diallo E. Uhuru appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Uhuru's action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) because he failed to establish "good cause" for his failure to serve the summons and complaint on the defendants within 120 days. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m); see also Bondette v. Boudette, 923 F.2d 754, 755 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that good cause means, at a minimum, excusable neglect).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Uhuru v. Khan

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 402
Aug 4, 2008
288 F. App'x 401 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Uhuru v. Khan

Case Details

Full title:Diallo E. UHURU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan KHAN; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 402

Date published: Aug 4, 2008

Citations

288 F. App'x 401 (9th Cir. 2008)