Rangel

Rangel v. County of San Joaquin

Good Law
855 F.2d 862
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 2, 198836-3_5California463 words

Opinion

Opinion

855 F.2d 862 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Jose Meliton RANGEL, Lucila Pacheco, Antonio Pacheco, Angel Ramirez, Guadalupe Moreno, and Ceverina Ramirez, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 87-1953. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 7, 1988. * Decided Aug. 2, 1988. Before SKOPIL, SCHROEDER and ALARCON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Jose Meliton Rangel, Lucila Pacheco, Antonio Pacheco, Angel Ramirez, and Ceverina Ramirez (appellants) appeal the order dismissing their 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action against the County of San Joaquin for failure to serve process within 120 days of the filing of their complaint. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j) requires dismissal of an action without prejudice if the plaintiff does not serve the summons and complaint within 120 days after filing the complaint, unless good cause is shown why service was not made within the prescribed time. Townsel…

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.