FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, No. 12-56661
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01885-GHK-SS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES
USA, INC.; PINKERTON
GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., AKA
PGS, Inc.; PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC.,
AKA Parasys, Inc.; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Erroneously Sued As Joaquin
Egan,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. King, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 27, 2014
Pasadena, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,
Senior District Judge.**
Appellant Michael Williams (Williams) sought relief pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(1) from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to
file an opposition to Appellees’ motion to dismiss. Williams contends that the
district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion because he
demonstrated excusable neglect in failing to file an opposition to the motion to
dismiss.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’ Rule
60(b) motion because Williams failed to demonstrate the requisite excusable
neglect. See Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 858 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc)
(holding that “[w]e must . . . affirm unless we are left with the definite and firm
conviction that the lower court committed a clear error of judgment in the
conclusion it reached after weighing the relevant [excusable neglect] factors”)
(citation omitted). The record supports the district court’s finding that Williams
failed to offer any evidence of excusable neglect on behalf of his counsel of record
at the time the motion to dismiss was filed. See Engleson v. Burlington N. R. R.
Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1992) (articulating that “[t]o qualify for
**
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
2
equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(1), the movant must demonstrate . . . excusable
neglect”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).1
AFFIRMED.
1
Williams also challenges the merits of the district court’s dismissal of his
complaint. However, our review is limited to the district court’s denial of
Williams’ Rule 60(b) motion. See Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d
379, 380 (9th Cir. 1997) (“An appeal from a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings
up only the denial of the motion for review, not the merits of the underlying
judgment.”) (citation omitted).
3