NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL C. SCHER, No. 15-16127
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02105-APG-
CWH
v.
CITY OF LAS VEGAS; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Michael C. Scher appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his action alleging federal claims against numerous individuals and the City of Las
Vegas arising from court proceedings related to a traffic violation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
*
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).
district court’s decision regarding the sufficiency of service of process. Rio Props.,
Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). We vacate and
remand.
The district court dismissed Scher’s action without prejudice for failure to
effectuate proper service in compliance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because Scher only sent the summons and a copy of the complaint via
certified mail. However, the record shows that Scher also submitted proofs of
service indicating that the Las Vegas Constable’s Office served all defendants,
personally or through representatives authorized to accept service of process,
within the prescribed time. Moreover, in their reply to Scher’s opposition to their
motion to dismiss, defendants note Scher’s “apparent sufficiency of service upon
the City of Las Vegas,” but the district court did not reference this in its dismissal
order, or address whether service effectuated through the Las Vegas Constable’s
Office was proper with respect to the individual defendants. Thus, we vacate and
remand for the district court to revisit whether service of process on the City of Las
Vegas and on the individual defendants was proper.
Scher’s pending motion is denied.
2 15-16127
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3 15-16127