Marin

Marin v. Tarr

Good Law
83 F. App'x 946
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 16, 2003No. 02-15507; D.C. No. CV-99-00900-MLSCalifornia500 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mel M. Marin (aka Melvin M. Marinko-vic) appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the summary judgment dismissing his action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , and various state laws, and the district court’s order enjoining Marin from commencing future litigation unless he complies with certain pre-filing restrictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion both the denial of a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel, 799 F.2d 1409, 1411 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam), and the imposition of pre-filing restrictions, Moy v. United States, 906 F.2d 467, 469 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Marin’s motion seeking an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal because Marin’s belief that a pending vexatious litigant order somehow tolled the time within which to file a notice of appeal does not constitute “good cause.” Fed. RApp. P.…

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.