Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0357-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marshall E. MIKELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jan ESTEP; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15602
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    FILED OCTOBER 4, 2017
    Marshall Edward Mikels, Mount Shasta, CA, pro se.
    Kaelee M. Gifford, Gwen Heather Ribar, Esquire, Jonathan M. Zak, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, Anthony Leung, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Marshall E. Mikels appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion for relief from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by construing Mikels’s motion to vacate as a Rule 60(b) motion and denying it because Mikels failed to file the motion “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981) (setting forth factors to determine whether a Rule 60(b) motion was filed within a “reasonable time”).

Appellees’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 50) is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.