Hill v. State Board of Control

Ninth Circuit

Hill v. State Board of Control

72 F. App'x 680

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 15, 2003

DocketNo. 02-17268; D.C. No. CV-99-06808-AWI

StatusPublished

This text of 72 F. App'x 680 (Hill v. State Board of Control) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. State Board of Control, 72 F. App'x 680 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Brian Terrell Hill appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate the judgment in his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Hill failed to file his motion to vacate within 10 days after entry of judgment, so the motion to vacate did not toll the time to file an appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to address the final judgment entered on August 27, 2002. See Am. Assoc, of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir.2000).

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill’s Rule 60(b) motion because he failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or any other basis for relief from judgment. See id.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

California state prisoner Brian Terrell Hill appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion to vacate the judgment in his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Hill failed to file his motion to vacate within 10 days after entry of judgment, so the motion to vacate did not toll the time to file an appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to address the final judgment entered on August 27, 2002. See Am. Assoc, of Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir.2000).

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, Bateman v. United States Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill’s Rule 60(b) motion because he failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or any other basis for relief from judgment. See id.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 F. App'x 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-board-of-control-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack