Carnevale

Charles Brown v. Carnevale

Good Law
361 F. App'x 883
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 11, 201009-35040California537 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Charles N. Brown, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his safety and serious medical needs while he was a pretrial detainee at Washington County Jail. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 273 (9th Cir.1990), and de novo its grant of summary judgment, Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Brown’s claims against defendants Carnevale, Nowack and Doe for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir.1986) (“A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Prison Health Services and Washington County because Brown failed to present any evidence that a specific official policy or custom deprived him of his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.