Napoleon Olivera v. CHURCH, Officer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAPOLEON OLIVERA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHURCH, Officer,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
CLARK COUNTY NV/CCDCDEF; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 20-16631
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00896-APG-VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Napoleon Olivera appeals pro se from the district
* 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).
FILED
JUN 1 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16631
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state
law claims relating to his pretrial detention. 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 Olivera’s action
because Olivera failed to effect timely and proper service of the summons and
complaint on defendant Church and did not show good cause for the failure,
despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)
(district court may dismiss a claim for failure to serve, after providing notice to the
plaintiff and absent a showing of good cause for failure to serve); Sheehan, 253
F.3d at 512 (discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause” standard).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --