James

James v. England

Good Law
120 F. App'x 100
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 13, 2005No. 03-57157California320 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Larry R. James appeals the district court’s October 6, 2003 order denying his second motion for relief from judgment in his civilian employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion, Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

James did not timely file a notice of appeal or tolling motion from either the underlying December 26, 2001 summary judgment or the August 15, 2002 order denying James’s first motion for relief from judgment. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr. of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 264 , 98 S.Ct. 556 , 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (Rule 4’s time limits are “mandatory and jurisdictional”). Accordingly, the scope of this appeal is limited to the order denying James’s second motion for relief from judgment.

Contrary to James’s contention, the district court did not abuse its discretion in construing James’s August 14, 2003 motion as a second motion for relief from the underlying summary judgment. See, e.g., SEC v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939 , 941 (9th Cir.2001) (reversal of “a district court’s exercise of its discretion” is appropriate…

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.