NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED OCT 20 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MELCHOR KARL T. LIMPIN, No. 20-55866 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02351-AJB-BLM v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT McSEVENEY, Immigration Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 12, 2021** Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Melchor Karl T. Limpin appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), arising from his arrest and detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We have jurisdiction under * 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Limpin’s claims against defendants in their official capacities because Limpin failed to establish any statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. See Ibrahim v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 538 F.3d 1250, 1257 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that Bivens claims are not available against federal agencies or agents sued in their official capacity); Dunn & Black, P.S. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1084, 1088 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is proper where plaintiff fails to establish an “unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity”). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Limpin’s claims against defendants in their individual capacities because Limpin failed to effect proper service of the summons and amended complaint after being given notice and an opportunity to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (outlining requirements for proper service and explaining that a district court may dismiss for failure to serve absent a showing of good cause for failure to serve); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.30 (outlining the requirements for service under California law); Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 511-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and discussing Rule 4(m)’s good cause notice standard and the district 2 20-55866 court’s broad discretion to dismiss an action). We reject as meritless Limpin’s contention that he should have been granted leave to amend. AFFIRMED. 3 20-55866 20-55866 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Melchor Limpin v. Robert McSeveney 20 October 2021 Civil Unpublished bb5c1cfac31b2c0b3d2bcc0485b92b83fcc033c0
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals