Gregory Norwood v. Steve Vance

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Gregory Lynn Norwood appeals pro se from 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 de novo the district court’s determination of jurisdiction over a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464, 1466 (9th Cir.1984), and for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of such a motion, Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2006). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Herring v. FDIC, 82 F.3d 282, 284 (9th Cir.1995). We affirm.

To the extent that Norwood’s motion seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(1) or Rule 60(b)(3), the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it because Norwood filed the motion more than one year after judgment was entered. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(l)(Rule 60(b)(1) and Rule 60(b)(3) motions must be made within one year of entry of judgment); Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir.1989)(pendency of appeal does not toll one-year filing period, and a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely motion to set aside a…