Levels v. ASI/SBC

Ninth Circuit

Levels v. ASI/SBC

310 F. App'x 189

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 2009

DocketNo. 06-15358

StatusPublished

This text of 310 F. App'x 189 (Levels v. ASI/SBC) 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

Levels v. ASI/SBC, 310 F. App'x 189 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

***

Earl V. Levels, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from the judgment in his action against his former employer alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, [190]*190and disability. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 996, 1005 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

To the extent Levels’s motion was based on excusable neglect pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), it was untimely, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion. See Fed. R.CivP. 60(c)(1); Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir.1989). To the extent Levels’s motion was based on the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6), he failed to demonstrate “circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with the prosecution ... of the action in a proper fashion.” Cmty. Dental Serv. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

***

Earl V. Levels, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from the judgment in his action against his former employer alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, [190]*190and disability. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 505 F.3d 996, 1005 (9th Cir.2007). We affirm.

To the extent Levels’s motion was based on excusable neglect pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), it was untimely, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion. See Fed. R.CivP. 60(c)(1); Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir.1989). To the extent Levels’s motion was based on the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6), he failed to demonstrate “circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with the prosecution ... of the action in a proper fashion.” Cmty. Dental Serv. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 F. App'x 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levels-v-asisbc-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack