Eric Hicks v. Garfield Beach Vcs Llc ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC T. HICKS, No. 11-55507
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:10-cv-00793-VAP-OP
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GARFIELD BEACH CVS LLC; and
THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC., Str 9804,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013 **
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Eric T. Hicks appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for an abuse of discretion, Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2007), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hicks’s motion for
a new trial because Hicks failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at
729 (setting forth grounds for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(a)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (setting forth grounds for relief from a final
judgment).
To the extent that Hicks challenges the district court’s judgment dismissing
his underlying action, we do not consider his contentions because Hicks did not
file a timely notice of appeal from that judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (tolling
motion must be filed within 28 days from entry of judgment); Fiester v. Turner,
783 F.2d 1474, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (order) (untimely motion does not suspend
time to appeal).
Hicks’s motion for discovery and sanctions, filed on November 7, 2011, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-55507