From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chen v. Westfield Mall, Corp.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 28, 2016
633 F. App'x 395 (9th Cir. 2016)

Opinion

No. 13-56038

01-28-2016

DENNIS CHEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WESTFIELD MALL, a California corporation; LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08409-RGK-MAN MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

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

Dennis Chen appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising from interference with his right to travel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a 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 Chen's action because Chen failed to show good cause as to why he did not timely serve defendants. See id. at 512 (explaining good cause standard). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to extend the service period. See id. at 513 (the district court has broad discretion to extend time for service or dismiss without prejudice).

We treat the dismissal of Chen's action as without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Chen v. Westfield Mall, Corp.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jan 28, 2016
633 F. App'x 395 (9th Cir. 2016)
Case details for

Chen v. Westfield Mall, Corp.

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS CHEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WESTFIELD MALL, a California…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jan 28, 2016

Citations

633 F. App'x 395 (9th Cir. 2016)