Sterling Shaw v. Jay Inslee

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 4, 2024
• Docket: 23-35417
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 4 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STERLING JAY SHAW, No. 23-35417

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:23-cv-05136-JLR

v. MEMORANDUM* JAY INSLEE, Governor; JENNIFER STRUS, Legislative Ethics Board, Washington State,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Sterling Jay Shaw appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 his action challenging

COVID-19 vaccination policies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

* 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). We review for an abuse of discretion. Omaya 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 Shaw’s action

because Shaw failed to effect proper service on defendants after being given

notice, opportunities, and directives to do so, and Shaw 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 signed by

the clerk and bear the court’s seal); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring dismissal of

actions where “defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed”

and plaintiff fails to show “good cause for the failure”); Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512

(describing factors to establish good cause).

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).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-35417