NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
PHILLIP REED, an individual, No. 12-55718
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-03776-JHN-JC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SERGIO JIMENEZ, Los Angeles County
Sheriffs Deputies [No. 476229];
ALBERTO HERNANDEZ, Los Angeles
County Sheriffs Deputies [No. 460887],
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jacqueline H. Nguyen, District Judge, Presiding
Argued August 8, 2013
Submitted March 19, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: TALLMAN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
In an appeal arising from the same incident at issue in Reed v. Baca, No. 11-
56429, plaintiff Philip Reed appeals both the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to the named defendants and its dismissal of the unnamed defendants.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, Fed. Trade Comm’n v.
Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm the grant of summary
judgment to Officers Jimenez and Hernandez for the reasons explained in our
disposition in Reed v. Baca, No. 11-56429.
We review for abuse of discretion the court’s dismissal of the unnamed
defendants due to Reed’s failure to serve them with process within 120 days of
filing. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other
grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483–84 (1995). The district court
properly held that because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)’s 120-day
requirement for service “is in direct collision” with California law, it must apply
Rule 4(m). Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 472 (1965). Reed could not show any
significant effort to obtain the names of the defendants he wished to serve in the
255 days following the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the district court did not
abuse its discretion when it concluded that Reed did not demonstrate good cause to
extend the time for service.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.