Lisa Ann Atkins v. Creighton Elementary School District

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LISA ANN ATKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CREIGHTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 12-16901
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00729-SRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Lisa Ann Atkins appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in her Title VII action alleging gender discrimination. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
FILED
AUG 01 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

decision regarding the sufficiency of service of process. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio
Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting summary judgment
for defendant because it correctly determined that Atkins failed to effectuate
service in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j)(2) (requiring service of process on state or local government
entity by either delivering summons and complaint on entity’s chief executive
officer or serving a copy of each in the manner proscribed by state law); Batty v.
Glendale Union High Sch. Dist. No. 205, 212 P.3d 930, 933-34 (Ariz. Ct. App.
2009) (under Arizona law, delivery of notice of claim on superintendent
insufficient to complete service of process on defendant school district); see also
Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that actual notice is
insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a defendant if service does not
substantially comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Atkins leave to
amend to allege, among other things, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because
amendment would have been futile. See Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ.,
555 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and
explaining that leave to amend may be denied if amendment would be futile).
12-16901 2

-- 2 of 3 --

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal, including
that defendant waived its service of process defense. See Peterson v. Highland
Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1321 (9th Cir. 1998) (applying a “general rule” against
entertaining arguments on appeal that were not presented or developed before the
district court).
Atkins’s motion to admit into evidence a transcript and CD recording, filed
on February 5, 2013, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
12-16901 3

-- 3 of 3 --