Carter

Carter v. Napolitano

Good Law
61 F. App'x 416
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 15, 2003No. 02-16665; D.C. No. CV-01-00804-FJMCalifornia287 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Dennis Loy Carter appeals pro se the judgment of the district court dismissing his action for failure to comply with a court order, and the order denying his post-judgment motions and notices. Because Carter filed his post-judgment motion more than 10 days after the entry of judgment, and filed his notice of appeal more than 30 days after entry of judgment, we have jurisdiction only over the post-judgment order. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi); Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Const. Corp., 248 F.3d 892 , *418 898 (9th Cir.2001). We review for an abuse of discretion, id. at 899, and affirm.

To the extent Carter’s post-judgment motions and notices were intended to further prosecute his action, the district court properly denied them as moot because the action had already been dismissed. To the extent Carter sought review of the district court’s judgment of dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), the district court properly denied the motions because they failed to address his non-compliance with the court order that formed the basis for dismissal. See id.

Because Carter filed his unserved amended complaint after the court-ordered deadline for filing an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.