Condalee Morris v. M. BARRA, Program Sergeant;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CONDALEE MORRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. BARRA, Program Sergeant; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-56527
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-02642-AJB-BGS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Condalee Morris appeals pro se from the district
court’s orders rejecting his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motions for
reconsideration of the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
FILED
JUN 06 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

After the district court entered judgment, Morris filed a notice of appeal
regarding the district court’s dismissal orders. While the appeal was pending in
this court, Morris attempted to file in the district court two motions for
reconsideration of the dismissal orders. The district court rejected the motions
because the case was closed and an appeal was pending. Morris then filed the
instant appeal. We construe the district court’s rejections of Morris’s motions for
reconsideration as refusals to entertain them, and so construed, the refusals are not
appealable orders. See Crateo, Inc. v. Intermark, Inc. (In re Crateo, Inc.), 536 F.2d
862, 869 (9th Cir. 1976) (when an appeal is already pending, a decision to neither
grant nor entertain a Rule 60(b) motion is a procedural ruling which is not
separately appealable), superseded in part on other grounds by rule as stated in
Miller v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 300 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2002).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Morris’s contentions regarding the
dismissal of his underlying claims or the timeliness of prior notices of appeal
because the operative notice of appeal was only timely as to the rejection of his
motions for reconsideration. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must
be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or order appealed from).
Morris’s request, set forth in his March 2, 2015 filing, is denied.
DISMISSED.
14-56527 2

-- 2 of 2 --