Tacuma M'wanza v. Q. Byrna ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TACUMA J. M’WANZA, No. 18-17094
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00590-MMD-WGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
Q. BYRNA, Deputy Director; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Former Nevada state prisoner Tacuma J. M’Wanza appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch.
*
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-n
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Dist. No. 1J, Mulnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.
1993). We vacate and remand.
The district court denied M’wanza’s motion for reconsideration because
M’wanza failed to establish a valid basis for relief. However, the district court
focused on only one factor of the equitable test for excusable neglect. See Pioneer
Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380,
395 (1993) (outlining the four-factor test for determining excusable neglect); see
also Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding
that the test set out in Pioneer applies to Rule 60(b) motions). We vacate and
remand for the district court to consider the four-factor test in the first instance.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2 18-17094