R. Kulick v. Marissa Mills

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

R. Kulick v. Marissa Mills

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

R. J. KULICK, No. 23-55663

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00571-GW-PVC

v. MEMORANDUM* MARISSA MILLS, AKA Marissa Hemme; ADELE MILLS, AKA Adele Reinstein; SHARON TOWERS LLC, AKA Sharon Towers Apartments; ANNE MILLS; HAROLD MILLS; RITA SINDER; JACK SINDER; MEISLER TRUST CONSOLIDATION PARTNERSHIP; SHARON TOWERS CO., a general partnership; ADELE TRUST; ADRIAN GUERRERO; PETER STEINMAN; DOES, 1 to 100, inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 16, 2024**

Before: SILVERMAN, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

* 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). R. J. Kulick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

action alleging various federal claims. 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 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 Kulick’s action

without prejudice because Kulick failed to effect proper service of the summons

and complaint, despite being given notice, opportunities, and directives to do so,

and Kulick did not establish good cause for his failure to serve. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(a)-(c) (setting forth requirements for service of process, including that the

summons must be served with a copy of the complaint); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)

(explaining that district court may dismiss for failure to serve after providing

notice and absent a showing of good cause).

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-55663

Reference

Status
Unpublished