Kindredcare

MEMORANDUM

Anthony A. Amerson appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his motion for reconsideration for the dismissal of his claims under Title VII and Title IX. We review the district court’s denial of Amerson’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 , 883 (9th Cir.2000). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Amerson, through his attorney, Michael K. Martin, attempted to electronically file his complaint against Kindredcare on November 5, 2012. Mr. Martin filed the complaint two days after the statute of limitations because he was unaware that the complaint must be manually filed with the court. The district court granted Kindred-care’s motion to dismiss the complaint as untimely. In a motion for reconsideration, Amerson argued that the district court erred in not applying the doctrine of equitable tolling to his complaint. Amerson appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration.

The district court did not err in denying Amerson’s motion for reconsideration. A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) must be filed no later…