WILLIENE DAVIS V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, No. 18-15804 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIENE D. DAVIS; WILLETTE D. JACOBS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-15804 D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01723-MCEGGH MEMORANDUM* STATE OF CALIFORNIA; SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CLERK’S OFFICE, a state agency, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Williene D. Davis and Willette D. Jacobs appeal pro se from the district court’s order striking their motion to reopen the case. We have jurisdiction under * 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 without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 403-04 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking plaintiffs’ postjudgment motion to reopen because plaintiffs’ motion was filed twelve years after the case was closed and the district court warned plaintiffs that no additional filings would be accepted. See id. at 404 (district courts have inherent power to control their docket, including power to strike items from the docket). We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s March 8, 2006 judgment because plaintiffs failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(A)(vi) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or order appealed from; Rule 60(b) motion must be filed within 28 days of judgment to have tolling effect); 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.”). AFFIRMED. 2 18-15804

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.