Court Opinion

ID: 9408384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 17:01:15.584434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.567409
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 12 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES WILL BONHAM,                              No. 22-16542

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00406-MTL

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
BANK OF AMERICA, NA,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      James Will Bonham appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his post-judgment motion for reconsideration in his action alleging federal claims

in connection with a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review for an abuse of discretion. Do Sung Uhm v. Humana, Inc., 620 F.3d

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bonham’s motion

for reconsideration because Bonham failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See

Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63

(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) and 60(b)).

      We do not consider Bonham’s contentions regarding the underlying

judgment because Bonham failed to file a timely notice of appeal of that judgment.

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of

judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi) (post-judgment tolling motions

must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                    22-16542