Opinion

Hill v. State Board of Control

  • 72 F. App'x 680
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Aug 15, 2003
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.9%

The opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Brian Terrell Hill appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate the judgment in his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Hill failed to file his motion to vacate within 10 days after entry of judgment, so the motion to vacate did not toll the time to file an appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to address the final judgment entered on August 27, 2002. See Am. Assoc, of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir.2000).

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill’s Rule 60(b) motion because he failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or any other basis for relief from judgment. See id.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.