Marsha Brandon v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; MORALES, Deputy, individual and official capacity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARSHA BRANDON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT; MORALES, Deputy,
individual and official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-56815
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-07613-PSG-E
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Marsha Brandon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion
FILED
NOV 27 2015
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 --

a dismissal for failure to serve a summons and complaint in a timely manner.
Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511 (9th Cir. 2001). We vacate
and remand.
The district court dismissed Brandon’s action without prejudice because
Brandon failed to show good cause as to why she did not provide the U.S.
Marshals Service with sufficient information to serve “Deputy Morales.”
However, the record indicates that Brandon provided the U.S. Marshals Service
with Deputy Morales’ last name, his place of employment, and the date, time, and
location of the alleged incident. See Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th
Cir. 1990) (a prisoner “proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S.
Marshal for service” and as long as he or she “provide[s] the necessary information
to help effectuate service,” a prisoner “should not be penalized by having his or her
action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal . . . has failed
to perform [its] duties”). The record does not indicate why the U.S. Marshal or the
Sheriff’s Department was unable to effectuate service. Accordingly, we vacate and
remand for further proceedings, including, if necessary, a determination of the U.S.
Marshal’s or Sheriff’s Department’s efforts to identify or locate Deputy Morales.
14-56815 2

-- 2 of 3 --

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) (per curiam).
VACATED and REMANDED.
14-56815 3

-- 3 of 3 --