From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reed v. Jimenez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 19, 2014
564 F. App'x 279 (9th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 12-55718 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-03776-JHN-JC

03-19-2014

PHILLIP REED, an individual, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SERGIO JIMENEZ, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Deputies [No. 476229]; ALBERTO HERNANDEZ, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Deputies [No. 460887], Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jacqueline H. Nguyen, District Judge, Presiding


Argued August 8, 2013

Submitted March 19, 2014

Pasadena, California

Before: TALLMAN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

In an appeal arising from the same incident at issue in Reed v. Baca., No. 1156429, plaintiff Philip Reed appeals both the district court's grant of summary judgment to the named defendants and its dismissal of the unnamed defendants.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Officers Jimenez and Hernandez for the reasons explained in our disposition in Reed v. Baca, No. 11-56429.

We review for abuse of discretion the court's dismissal of the unnamed defendants due to Reed's failure to serve them with process within 120 days of filing. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). The district court properly held that because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)'s 120-day requirement for service "is in direct collision" with California law, it must apply Rule 4(m). Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 472 (1965). Reed could not show any significant effort to obtain the names of the defendants he wished to serve in the 255 days following the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Reed did not demonstrate good cause to extend the time for service.

The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Reed v. Jimenez

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Mar 19, 2014
564 F. App'x 279 (9th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

Reed v. Jimenez

Case Details

Full title:PHILLIP REED, an individual, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SERGIO JIMENEZ, Los…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 19, 2014

Citations

564 F. App'x 279 (9th Cir. 2014)