NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 7 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN L. PERRY, No. 14-56618
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-mc-00381-JLS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, a public entity,
Defendant-Appellee.
KEVIN L. PERRY, No. 14-56707
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00176-LAB-
RBB
v.
VEOLIA TRANSPORT, DBA Veolia
Transportation Services, Inc., A Maryland
Corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Kevin L. Perry appeals pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing his action for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant
order (No. 14-56618), and the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from judgment (No. 14-56707). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion both the
district court’s denial of leave to file a complaint pursuant to a vexatious litigant
order, In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000), and the district
court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th
Cir. 1993). We affirm.
As to No. 14-56618, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Perry’s motion for leave to file a complaint because Perry failed to comply with
the vexatious litigant order entered against him. See Perry v. Veolia Transp., et al.,
No. 11-CV–176–LAB–RBB, 2011 WL 4566449 at *9-12 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30,
2011). Perry failed to submit a copy of the vexatious litigant order with his motion
as required and falsely certified that his proposed complaint raised new issues not
previously raised in a prior state or federal action.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 14-56618
As to No. 14-56707, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Perry’s motion for relief from judgment where Perry never appealed from the
judgment, presented no reason for the nearly three-year delay in filing his motion,
and did not establish any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)-(6); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (Rule 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6) motions must be filed “within a
reasonable time”); see also In re Pac. Far East Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242, 249 (9th
Cir. 1989) (“What constitutes a reasonable time depends on the facts of each
case.”).
14-56618: AFFIRMED.
14-56707: AFFIRMED.
3 14-56618