Case Name: Jaime Ignacio ESTRADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. Malo CLINES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-03
Citations: 559 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 13-15551
Parties: Jaime Ignacio ESTRADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. Malo CLINES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 559
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
Jaime Ignacio ESTRADA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. Malo CLINES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-15551.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2014.
Filed March 3, 2014.
Jaime Ignacio Estrada, Delano, CA, pro se.
Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Martin Kosla, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, 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
California state prisoner Jaime Ignacio Estrada appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b) motion to vacate entry of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Estrada's Rule 60(b) motion, which was filed after the notice of appeal had been filed, thereby depriving the district court of its jurisdiction. See id. (vacating for lack of jurisdiction an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion where the motion was filed after the notice of appeal and movant did not follow the procedure for seeking a remand of the case back to district court).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.