Punaofo Tsugito Tilei v. T. Hasadsri, M.d.;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PUNAOFO TSUGITO TILEI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
T. HASADSRI, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15553
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00069-LJO-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Punaofo Tsugito Tilei, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his motion for relief from its earlier judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-15553 2
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion, Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1191-92 (9th Cir.
2009), and we reverse and remand.
Tilei’s motion to reopen cited “excusable neglect,” a basis for relief under
Rule 60(b)(1), as ground for reopening. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). However, the
district court evaluated and denied Tilei’s motion under Rule 60(b)(6). This was
an abuse of discretion. See Lemoge, 587 F.3d at 1192 n.2 (“If the trial court did
not identify the correct legal standard, it is an abuse of discretion.”). Based on the
record before us, Tilei has established that he is entitled to relief from the district
court’s judgment. See id. at 1195-98 (remanding after applying the excusable
neglect standard to a Rule 60 motion predicated on counsel’s severe medical
hardship); Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 & n.3 (9th Cir.
2000) (setting forth the equitable analysis and holding that “where the record is
sufficiently complete for us to conduct the analysis ourselves, it would be
inefficient to remand the issue to the district court”).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to allow Tilei to
amend his complaint to address the substantive issues identified in the district
court’s order of October 13, 2010, and for the district court to consider in the first

-- 2 of 3 --

12-15553 3
instance Tilei’s motion to appoint counsel in light of his medical condition.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --