LAUREN PAULSON V. MATT ARBAUGH, No. 13-35077 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUL 09 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LAUREN PAULSON, Nos. 13-35077 13-35407 Plaintiff - Appellant / CrossApellee, D.C. No. 3:12-mc-00196-MO v. MEMORANDUM* MATT ARBAUGH; et al., Defendants - Appellees / CrossApellants. And AMY MITCHELL, Defendant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2015** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Lauren Paulson appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of property. Matt Arbaugh and Craig Russillo cross-appeal from the district court’s order granting Paulson’s motion to reopen the time to appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Paulson failed to appeal within 30 days of December 21, 2012, the date on which the district court’s judgment was entered, as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). The district court granted Paulson’s motion to reopen the time to appeal the judgment, but Paulson did not show that he received notice of the judgment more than 21 days after entry of the judgment as required by Rule 4(a)(6). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A); Arai v. Am. Bryce Ranches Inc., 316 F.3d 1066, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (ruling on a Rule 4(a)(6) motion reviewed for abuse of discretion); Nunley v. City of Los Angeles, 52 F.3d 792, 795 (9th Cir. 1995) (the moving party has the burden to demonstrate non-receipt). Accordingly, Paulson’s notice of appeal was untimely and we lack jurisdiction. See Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”). 2 13-35077 & 13-35407 Because we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, we do not consider Paulson’s arguments on appeal addressing the underlying merits or his pending motions. DISMISSED. 3 13-35077 & 13-35407
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.
