Robert L. Jarrett, Jr. v. United States District Court for the Central District of California Western Division…

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT L. JARRETT, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
PRO SE CLERKS OFFICE, in their
official capacities; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 09-56032
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02446-VBF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUL 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-56032 2
Robert L. Jarrett, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his action for failure to effect service of process within 120 days, as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270,
273 (9th Cir. 1990), and we reverse and remand.
The district court allowed Jarrett to proceed without prepayment of filing
fees, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (authorizing federal courts to allow a plaintiff to
proceed without prepayment of filing fees), entitling him to have officers of the
court issue and serve all process, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3);
Puett, 912 F.2d at 273. The district court abused its discretion by dismissing
Jarrett’s request for court officers to effect service and then dismissing the action
for lack of service. If on remand the district court determines that the complaint
survives 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) (requiring the district court to
dismiss an action filed under § 1915(a) that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted), then the court should proceed to order
service of process under § 1915(d).
Jarrett shall bear his own costs on appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-56032 3
Jarrett’s motions filed on October 13, 2009, and November 20, 2009, are
denied.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --