Manzano v. California Department of Motor Vehicles

MEMORANDUM

Mercury Manzano appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff repeatedly missed deadlines to file a second amended complaint. The district court denied plaintiff’s untimely stipulation for a further extension of time. When plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss, the district court dismissed the action. The district court then denied Manzano’s application to set aside the dismissal, which had contended that the neglect of his counsel should be excused due to illness. Pursuant to the terms of F.R.A.P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii), we have jurisdiction over the appeal because the time for filing the notice of appeal was extended to 180 days from the entry of the dismissal order. Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food and Drug Centers, Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir.2007).

Plaintiff’s belated Motion to be Relieved of Default in Timely Submitting Excerpt of Record in this court is granted. The Excerpts are ordered filed.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Manzano’s untimely stipulation for a further extension of time to file a second amended complaint. See Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28…