Marshall E. Mikels v. Jan Estep;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARSHALL E. MIKELS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAN ESTEP; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15602
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00056-EMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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
* 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).
FILED
OCT 4 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15602
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.

-- 2 of 2 --