NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
HAROLD BRIAN KRIEG, No. 12-17585
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00115-KJD-RJJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RICHARD GREGORY CRAIN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Harold Brian Krieg appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
for failure to effect timely service his action challenging an unfavorable Nevada
state court judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for an abuse of discretion, Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2001), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Krieg’s action
because Krieg failed to establish good cause for his failure to effect timely service
of the summons and complaint on defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring
service within 120 days after the complaint is filed); In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d at
512-13 (explaining that courts may dismiss an action without prejudice for
defective or untimely service, absent a showing of good cause, and discussing the
requirements for a showing of good cause).
Moreover, dismissal of Krieg’s action was proper because federal courts
lack jurisdiction over de facto appeals from state court judgments. See Noel v.
Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review); see
also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars “state-court losers complaining of injuries caused
by state-court judgments” from seeking federal review of those judgments).
Krieg’s contentions regarding his timely service in the prior state court
action; defendant’s alleged attempts to dodge service and failure to appear in the
prior action; the district court’s alleged improper motives for dismissing the
underlying action; and the merits of his underlying claims are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-17585