NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 1 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
CHRISTINA SANCHEZ, No. 09-16651
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:07-cv-04174-HRL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SUZETTE Z. TORRES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Howard R. Lloyd, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted June 15, 2011 ***
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Christina Sanchez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to serve. 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 the action as to
defendants who had not voluntarily appeared because Sanchez failed to provide
proofs of service either within 120 days of filing her complaint or in the period
specified in the district court’s order, or to demonstrate good cause for her failure
to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring service within 120 days after the
complaint is filed, or within a time period specified by court order); In re Sheehan,
253 F.3d at 512 (discussing good cause standard); see also Wong v. Regents of
Univ. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts have authority to set and
enforce deadlines to foster the efficient resolution of cases).
Contrary to Sanchez’s contention, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying Sanchez’s third request for an extension of time to file a
third amended complaint. See Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003
(9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that the district
court’s discretion is particularly broad when it has already granted leave to amend).
Sanchez’s motion for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 09-16651