Anthony Burriola v. Ted D'Amico ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUN 06 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    ANTHONY J. BURRIOLA,                             No. 13-16418
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00346-JCM-
    RAM
    v.
    TED D’AMICO; et al.,                             MEMORANDUM*
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 24, 2016**
    Before:        REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Nevada state prisoner Anthony J. Burriola appeals pro se from the district
    court’s order denying his motion to reopen his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action following
    the dismissal of his claims pursuant to a settlement agreement. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch.
    *
    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).
    Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1262 (9th Cir.
    1993). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Burriola’s motion
    to reopen because Burriola failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See 
    id. at 1262-63
     (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
    and Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); see also United States v. Stonehill, 
    660 F.3d 415
    , 443-
    44 (9th Cir. 2011) (fraud upon the court in the Rule 60(b) context must be
    established by clear and convincing evidence).
    We lack jurisdiction to review Burriola’s challenges to the district court’s
    prior orders because Burriola did not file a timely notice of appeal or a timely post-
    judgment tolling motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be
    filed within 30 days after entry of judgment); Bowles v. Russell, 
    551 U.S. 205
    , 214
    (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
    requirement.”).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     13-16418
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-16418

Judges: Reinhardt, Fletcher, Owens

Filed Date: 6/6/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024