Unpublished Disposition, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1986)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Appellant William P. Lindo appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We affirm the district court's denial of Lindo's motion for relief.

This case began in February 1983 when Lindo filed a Title VII employment discrimination action against the City and County of San Francisco, the Department of Social Services, and the Civil Service Commission. Lindo alleged that the Department of Social Services had engaged in race discrimination by forcing him to resign and accepting his resignation with "services unsatisfactory." In October 1983, the parties entered into a stipulated dismissal of Lindo's action. The defendants agreed to (1) have the Department of Social Services request the Civil Service Commission to change Lindo's resignation status from resignation with services unsatisfactory to services satisfactory, (2) remove objectionable materials from Lindo's Department of Social Services personnel file, (3) offer Lindo a non-civil service position upon exhaustion of the current eligibility list, and (4) notify Lindo as soon as applications were next available for normal civil service positions.

In February 1985, Lindo brought his first motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to set aside the judgment of dismissal. The district court denied Lindo's request. The Ninth Circuit, in a memorandum disposition filed June 18, 1986, affirmed the district court's denial of Lindo's motion. Lindo has now filed another Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment. The district court, finding that Lindo has offered no new evidence which indicates that the defendants have not abided by the stipulation, once again denied his request to reopen his case.

We review a district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986). Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lindo's request to set aside the judgment. Lindo bases his motion on the absence of any document in his Civil Service Commission file indicating a change in his resignation status from "services unsatisfactory" to "services satisfactory." However, the record suggests that the file which Lindo reviewed was an inactive file that had been sealed when Lindo's resignation status was changed to "services satisfactory." The record also contains several affidavits and documents indicating that Lindo's personnel records have indeed been altered to reflect a resignation with "services satisfactory." In short, none of Lindo's "new" evidence raises serious doubts that his resignation record has not been changed.

Moreover, Lindo's motion, brought more than four years after the final judgment was entered, exceeds the one-year statute of limitations period for bringing a Rule 60(b) motion based on mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Thus, the district court's order denying relief from judgment is AFFIRMED.