Faizah Dean v. Southern California Edison , 675 F. App'x 649 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FAIZAH NAILAH DEAN, No. 15-55314
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
5:12-cv-01435-MWF-DTB
v.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; MEMORANDUM*
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS 47, a
Unincorporated Association,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Faizah Nailah Dean appeals pro se from the district court’s order rejecting
Dean’s fourth post-judgment motion for relief from the district court’s order
*
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).
granting summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to deny a Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(b) motion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004).
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Dean’s Rule 60(b)
motion where Dean failed to file it “within a reasonable time”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60
(c); Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981) (setting forth factors to
determine whether a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(3) motion has been filed within a
“reasonable time”; where the time for a direct appeal has passed, “the interest in
finality must be given great weight”).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-55314