Erlanson v. United States Forest Service

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID ERLANSON, SR., No. 24-6808 D.C. No. 4:24-cv-00023-BLW Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

David Erlanson, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging federal claims related to water rights. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a

* 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). 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 Erlanson’s action

because Erlanson failed to effect proper service of the summons and complaint

despite being given notice, opportunities, and directives to do so, and Erlanson did

not establish good cause for his failure to serve. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)

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

notice and absent a showing of good cause); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A)

(requiring service on the United States in part by “(i) deliver[ing] a copy of the

summons and of the complaint to the United States Attorney . . . or (ii) send[ing] a

copy of each by registered or certified mail to the civil-process clerk at the United

States attorney’s office”).

Contrary to Erlanson’s contentions that the district judge lacked jurisdiction

to hear the case, a senior district judge is an Article III judge. See Nguyen v. United

States, 539 U.S. 69, 72 (2003) (noting that a senior judge is a “life-tenured Article

III judge[ ]”).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6808