22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4bc,MEMORANDUM Frank, Gabriela, Patricia, John, and Frank E. Konarski appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s order denying a motion for relief from judgment, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Konarskis’ motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1) because the Konarskis failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or any other ground for relief. See ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)); see also Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth four-factor equitable test for determining whether a party’s failure to meet a déadline constitutes “excusable neglect”). Appellees’- request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T4ee,

MEMORANDUM

Frank, Gabriela, Patricia, John, and Frank E. Konarski appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s order denying a motion for relief from judgment, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Konarskis’ motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1) because the Konarskis failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or any other ground for relief. See ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)); see also Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth four-factor equitable test for determining whether a party’s failure to meet a déadline constitutes “excusable neglect”).

Appellees’- request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.