Mark Durbin v. State of Washington

Ninth Circuit

Mark Durbin v. State of Washington

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 12, 2023

Docket22-35872

StatusUnpublished

This text of Mark Durbin v. State of Washington (Mark Durbin v. State of Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mark Durbin v. State of Washington, (9th Cir. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARK F. DURBIN, No. 22-35872

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00200-JHC

v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF WASHINGTON, as Respondeats Superior for, with, together, and employing; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John H. Chun, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Mark F. Durbin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to

* 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). 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 Durbin’s claims

against defendants State of Washington, King County, Keena Javier, Kellon Pitts,

Amanda Zerger, and Zachery Boyd, because Durbin failed to effect proper service

of the summons and complaint and did not demonstrate good cause for failing to

serve properly, despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service and explaining that district

court may dismiss for failure to serve after providing notice and absent a showing

of good cause for failure to serve); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (discussing Rule

4(m)’s “good cause” standard).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-35872

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI