Marks v. City of Seattle

125 F. App'x 170
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 4, 2005·No. No. 04-35197·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mamie D. Hill appeals pro se the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a workplace dispute. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, [171] Fiester v. Turner, 783 F.2d 1474 (9th Cir. 1986), and we affirm.

Western District of Washington Local Rule CR7(h) requires motions for reconsideration to be filed within ten judicial days of the order to which it relates. Hill’s motion was filed thirteen days after judgment was entered dismissing her section 1983 action. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for reconsideration as untimely. See Guam Sasaki Corp. v. Diana’s Inc., 881 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir.1989) (noting this court should accord broad deference to the district court’s interpretation of local rules).

Hill’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

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

Marks v. City of Seattle, 125 F. App'x 170 (9th Cir. 2005).

125 F. App'x 170 (Marks v. City of Seattle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marin v. Bahr
S.D. California, 2025