NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK KONARSKI, DBA FGPJ No. 15-17182
Apartments & Development; et al.,
D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00999-DCB
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL G. RANKIN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Frank, Gabriela, Patricia, John, and Frank E. Konarski appeal from the
district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute their 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion a district court’s order denying a motion for relief from judgment, Sch.
*
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).
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th
Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Konarskis’
motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(1) because the
Konarskis failed to demonstrate excusable neglect or any other ground for relief.
See ACandS, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Rules
59(e) and 60(b)); see also Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261
(9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth four-factor equitable test for determining whether a
party’s failure to meet a deadline constitutes “excusable neglect”).
Appellees’ request for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied as
moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-17182