Bradburn

MEMORANDUM

James Bradburn appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s denial of Bradburn’s post-judgment motion for abuse of discretion, see School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 , 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we vacate and remand.

Bradburn contends that the judgment should have been set aside because he never received the defendants’ summary judgment papers. Bradburn’s post-judgment motion should be construed as a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) motion for relief from judgment for excusable neglect. See id. Whether neglect is excusable is an equitable determination and “depends on at least four factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith.” Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir.2000). Here, the district court failed to engage in the appropriate equitable analysis. See id. at 1224 (reversing denial of motion for relief from judgment…