Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0725-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carmon E. WARREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. SHAWNEGO, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-16525.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 14, 2014.
    
    Filed April 9, 2015.
    Carmon E. Warren, Calipatria, CA, pro se.
    Jose Zelidon-Zepeda, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carmon E. Warren, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment of the dismissal of his action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Warren failed to appeal within 30 days of April 23, 2013, the date of the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); Fed. R.App. P. 4(c)(1) (“[T]he notice is timely if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail system on or before the last day for filing.”); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 273, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (“[DJelivery of a notice of appeal to prison authorities would not under any theory constitute a ‘filing’ unless the notice were delivered for forwarding to the district court.”). Accordingly, Warren’s notices of appeal were untimely and we lack jurisdiction. See 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.”).

Even if we had jurisdiction, we would affirm the district court’s order denying Warren’s motion for relief from judgment, because Warren failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances warranting such relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6); E.D. Cal. R. 230(j)(3)-(4) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under local rules); see also Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir.2014) (explaining that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing suit).

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