Lauren Paulson v. Matt Arbaugh , 609 F. App'x 482 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 09 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAUREN PAULSON, Nos. 13-35077
13-35407
Plaintiff - Appellant / Cross-
Apellee, D.C. No. 3:12-mc-00196-MO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATT ARBAUGH; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees / Cross-
Apellants.
And
AMY MITCHELL,
Defendant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Lauren Paulson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his action alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of property. Matt Arbaugh and
Craig Russillo cross-appeal from the district court’s order granting Paulson’s
motion to reopen the time to appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Paulson failed to appeal within 30 days of December 21, 2012, the date on
which the district court’s judgment was entered, as required by Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). The district court granted Paulson’s motion to
reopen the time to appeal the judgment, but Paulson did not show that he received
notice of the judgment more than 21 days after entry of the judgment as required
by Rule 4(a)(6). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A); Arai v. Am. Bryce Ranches Inc.,
316 F.3d 1066, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (ruling on a Rule 4(a)(6) motion reviewed
for abuse of discretion); Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 795 (9th Cir.
1995) (the moving party has the burden to demonstrate non-receipt). Accordingly,
Paulson’s notice of appeal was untimely and we lack jurisdiction. See
Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703
(9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional
requirement.”).
2 13-35077 & 13-35407
Because we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, we do not consider Paulson’s
arguments on appeal addressing the underlying merits or his pending motions.
DISMISSED.
3 13-35077 & 13-35407