Case ID: f-appx_154/html/0633-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nansen OLSON, Plaintiff, and Dana L. Olson, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-35204.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 8, 2005.
    
    Decided Nov. 16, 2005.
    Dana L. Olson, Wasilla, AK, pro se.
    John Aschenbrenner, Esq., Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Palmer, AK, Sabrina E.L. Fernandez, Esq., Linda L. Kesterson, Esq., Office of the Alaska Attorney General, Anchorage, AK, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: WALLACE, LEAYY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dana L. Olson appeals pro se the district court’s order denying relief from judgment following its judgment dismissing her land use action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that Olson’s motion, filed six years after the court dismissed her action, was timely only if construed as a motion under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), and that she failed to demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.1993).

Olson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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.