Patrick Koontz v. Max Williams , 551 F. App'x 335 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           DEC 31 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK NEAL KOONTZ,                             No. 12-35741
    Plaintiff - Appellant,           D.C. No. 3:10-cv-06227-HU
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MAX WILLIAMS, in his official and
    individual capacity as Director of the
    Oregon Department of Corrections; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 17, 2013**
    Before:         GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    Oregon state prisoner Patrick Neal Koontz appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action challenging the
    *
    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).
    conditions of his confinement. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We
    review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to file an amended
    complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. McHenry v.
    Renne, 
    84 F.3d 1172
    , 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
    Contrary to defendants’ contention, Koontz’s notice of appeal is timely as to
    the judgment of dismissal. A notice of appeal filed by a prisoner is presumed to
    have been delivered to prison officials for mailing at least one day before its filing
    date. See Sudduth v. Arizona Atty. Gen., 
    921 F.2d 206
    , 207 (9th Cir. 1990) (order).
    Here, Koontz filed his notice of appeal on the fifteenth day after the district court’s
    order granting his motion to reopen, and it is timely because he is presumed to
    have given it to prison officials to file on the fourteenth day. See Fed. R. App. P.
    4(a)(6) (appeal must be filed within fourteen days after the district court’s order
    reopening the time to file an appeal); Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) (inmate’s notice of
    appeal is deemed timely if deposited in institution’s internal mail system on or
    before the last day of filing).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Koontz’s action
    with prejudice after Koontz failed to comply with the court’s order to file an
    amended complaint despite obtaining four extensions of time totaling more than a
    year. See Ferdick v. Bonzelet, 
    963 F.2d 1258
    , 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting
    2                                      12-35741
    forth factors applicable to dismissal for failure to comply with an order to amend);
    McHenry, 
    84 F.3d at 1177
     (affirming dismissal where plaintiff failed to amend
    complaint in compliance with Rule 8 despite three opportunities to amend).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Koontz’s motion
    for reconsideration because Koontz failed to establish grounds for relief under
    either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
    Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)
    (setting forth standard of review and listing factors for reconsideration and relief
    from judgment under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)).
    We reject Koontz’s contentions that the district court failed to consider his
    pro se status, his need for additional time to allege supplemental claims permitted
    by the court, and the “totality of the circumstances” before dismissing his action.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                    12-35741
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-35741

Citation Numbers: 551 F. App'x 335

Judges: Goodwin, Graber, Wallace

Filed Date: 12/31/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/31/2023