Briggs v. Administrative Office of the United States Courts

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRYAN MICHAEL THOMAS BRIGGS, No. 25-2349 D.C. No. 3:24-cv-06489-RFL Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS; UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Rita F. Lin, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2026** Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Bryan Michael Thomas Briggs appeals pro se from the district court’s

* 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). judgment dismissing his action alleging constitutional violations related to his bankruptcy proceedings. 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 in dismissing Briggs’s action without prejudice because Briggs failed to effect proper service of the summons and complaint despite being given notice, opportunities, and directives to do so, and did not establish good cause for this failure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (explaining that the district court must dismiss for failure to serve after providing notice and absent a showing of good cause); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) (setting forth requirements for waiver of service); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) (setting forth requirements for service on United States agencies, corporations, officers, and employees).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-2349