Brenda M. Johnson v. City of Lakewood;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENDA M. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF LAKEWOOD; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35197
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05727-RJB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Brenda M. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising
out of her arrest in Washington state. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim
* 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
MAY 25 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-35197
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341
(9th Cir. 2010), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for lack
of proper service, Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir.
2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s claims against the City of
Lakewood because Johnson failed to allege Officer Mills was a Lakewood
employee. See Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are to be
liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Johnson’s claims
against Mills because Johnson failed to effect proper service of the summons and
complaint on Mills after being given notice and an opportunity to do so. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service, and explaining that a
district court may dismiss for failure to serve after providing notice 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).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-35197
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --