Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joseph S. Amundsen

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH S. AMUNDSEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-17759
D.C. No. 3:83-cv-00711-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Joseph S. Amundsen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion to vacate a permanent injunction entered against him in 1983. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Casey
FILED
MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17759 2
v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Amundsen’s
motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) because Amundsen failed to demonstrate
that any changed circumstances have made his compliance with the injunction
“substantially more onerous, unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles,
detrimental to the public interest, or legally impermissible.” SEC v. Coldicutt, 258
F.3d 939, 942 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
the plaintiff’s request to terminate a permanent injunction due to changed
circumstances).
To the extent that Amundsen’s motion falls within Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3),
the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it because Amundsen filed his
motion more than one year after judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(c)(1) (Rule 60(b)(3) motion must be made within one year of entry of
judgment); Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1989) (a district
court lacks jurisdiction to consider an untimely motion to set aside a judgment).
Amundsen’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --