Hampton

Hampton v. Madding

Good Law
68 F. App'x 55
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 17, 2003No. 02-16354; D.C. No. CV-99-06750-OWW(HGB)California282 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Bradley Dean Hampton appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to vacate the judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We review for abuse of discretion, TCI Group Life Ins. Co. v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691 , 695 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court dismissed Hampton’s first amended complaint with leave to *56 amend. Hampton did not amend his complaint and the district court entered judgment against him. Hampton contends that the judgment should have been set aside because he never received the district court’s order granting leave to amend or its judgment dismissing his action.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to set aside judgment given that the district court mailed its order of dismissal and its judgment to the last address Hampton gave the court, Hampton was on notice that the court was using this address, and Hampton did not inquire about the status of his case for over eleven months after receiving the last document from the court. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir.1988) (upholding a dismissal for lack of prosecution when 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.