JAIME ESTRADA V. C. CLINES, No. 13-15551 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 03 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAIME IGNACIO ESTRADA, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-15551 D.C. No. 5:10-cv-04832-LHK v. MEMORANDUM* C. MALO CLINES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy Koh, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2014** Before: ALARCÃ N, O SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Jaime Ignacio Estrada appeals pro se from the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b) motion to vacate entry of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under * 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 586 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm. The district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Estrada s Rule 60(b) motion, which was filed after the notice of appeal had been filed, thereby depriving the district court of its jurisdiction. See id. (vacating for lack of jurisdiction an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion where the motion was filed after the notice of appeal and movant did not follow the procedure for seeking a remand of the case back to district court). AFFIRMED. 2 13-15551

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.