Williene Davis v. State of California

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 19, 2018
• Docket: 18-15804
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIENE D. DAVIS; WILLETTE D. No. 18-15804 JACOBS, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01723-MCE- Plaintiffs-Appellants, GGH

v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF CALIFORNIA; SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CLERK’S OFFICE, a state agency,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 12, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Williene D. Davis and Willette D. Jacobs appeal pro se from the district

court’s order striking their motion to reopen the case. We have jurisdiction under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ready Transp., Inc. v.

AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 403-04 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking plaintiffs’ post-

judgment motion to reopen because plaintiffs’ motion was filed twelve years after

the case was closed and the district court warned plaintiffs that no additional filings

would be accepted. See id. at 404 (district courts have inherent power to control

their docket, including power to strike items from the docket).

We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s March 8, 2006 judgment

because plaintiffs failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to the judgment. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(A)(vi) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30

days after entry of judgment or order appealed from; Rule 60(b) motion must be

filed within 28 days of judgment to have tolling effect); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v.

Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely

notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-15804