Case Name: Frank KONARSKI, DBA FGPJ Apartments & Development; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michael G. RANKIN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-19
Citations: 710 F. App'x 289
Docket Number: No. 15-17182
Parties: Frank KONARSKI, DBA FGPJ Apartments & Development; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michael G. RANKIN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 289–289

Head Matter:
Frank KONARSKI, DBA FGPJ Apartments & Development; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michael G. RANKIN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-17182
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 16, 2018
Filed January 19, 2018
Frank Konarski, Pro Se
Gabriela Konarski, Pro Se
Patricia Konarski, Pro Se
John F. Konarski, Pro Se
Frank E. Konarski, Pro Se
Jenne S. Forbes, Attorney, James W. Stuehringer, Esquire, Attorney, Waterfall, Economidis, Caldwell, Hanshaw & Villa-mana, P.C., Tucson, AZ', for Defendants-Appellees
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Frank, Gabriela, Patricia, John, and Frank E. Konarski appeal from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's order denying a motion for relief from judgment, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Konarskis' motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1) because the Konarskis failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or any other ground for relief. See ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)); see also Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth four-factor equitable test for determining whether a party's failure to meet a déadline constitutes "excusable neglect").
Appellees'- request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.