Mark F. Durbin v. State of Washington, as Respondeats Superior for, with, together, and employing;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK F. DURBIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, as
Respondeats Superior for, with, together, and
employing; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-35872
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00200-JHC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John H. Chun, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Mark F. Durbin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to
* 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
JUL 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-35872
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 Durbin’s claims
against defendants State of Washington, King County, Keena Javier, Kellon Pitts,
Amanda Zerger, and Zachery Boyd, because Durbin failed to effect proper service
of the summons and complaint and did not demonstrate good cause for failing to
serve properly, despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service and explaining that district
court may dismiss for failure to serve after providing notice and absent a showing
of good cause for failure to serve); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (discussing Rule
4(m)’s “good cause” standard).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --