NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 2 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARILYN TILLMAN-CONERLY, No. 20-17502
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00950-TLN-KJN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT;
LAVERNE WATSON, OPM Legal
Administrative Specialist,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Marilyn Tillman-Conerly appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourteenth Amendment claims
against the United States Office of Personnel Management based on her federal
*
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).
retirement benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to 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 Tillman-
Conerly’s action because Tillman-Conerly failed to effect timely and proper
service of the summons and complaint on defendants and did not show good cause
for the failure, despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(m) (district court may dismiss a claim for failure to serve, after providing
notice to the plaintiff and absent a showing of good cause for failure to serve);
Sheehan, 253 F.3d at 512 (discussing Rule 4(m)’s “good cause” standard).
Moreover, as to defendant Watson, Tillman-Conerly failed to effect timely and
proper service under California law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e) (setting forth
methods for serving an individual, including by following relevant state law); Cal.
Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30 (listing the requirements for service by mail under
California law); Barlow v. Ground, 39 F.3d 231, 234 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Although
California law does permit service of a summons by mail, such service is valid
only if a signed acknowledgment is returned and other requirements are complied
with[.]”).
2 20-17502
We reject as meritless Tillman-Conerly’s contentions that the district court
was biased against her.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-17502