U.S. v. Peckham

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Thomas PECKHAM; Patricia…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 14, 2001

23 F. App'x 683 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

23 Fed.Appx. 683 (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. Thomas PECKHAM; Patricia Peckham, Defendants--Appellants. No. 00-56560. D.C. No. CV-98-01352-JTM. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. November 14, 2001

Submitted November 5, 2001. ^*

* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the Peckhams' request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Property owners appealed from order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Jeffrey T. Miller, J., which denied their motion for reconsideration of summary judgment for United States in ejection action. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) it lacked jurisdiction over appeal from original entry of summary judgment, and (2) District Court properly exercised its discretion in denying motion for reconsideration.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding.

Before BROWNING, KLEINFELD, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Thomas and Patricia Peckham appeal pro se the district court's order denying their motion for reconsideration of summary judgment for the United States in this ejectment action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We lack jurisdiction to address the Peckhams' arguments concerning the merits of the district court's original entry of judgment because the Peckhams both failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 60 days of entry of final judgment and failed to file a timely post judgment tolling motion. See Fed. R.App. P. 4. Accordingly by order dated October 11, 2000, this court limited the scope of the Peckhams' appeal to the court's denial of their motion to reconsider.

"An untimely motion for reconsideration is construed as a motion based on Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)." Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1463 n. 35 (9th Cir.1992). Denial of such a motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). Because the Peckhams failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly-discovered evidence, or any other basis for relief from judgment, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying their motion to reconsider. See id., at 1262-63.

AFFIRMED.