E. K. Wade v. Woody Gilliland;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
E. K. WADE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WOODY GILLILAND; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-17007
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00425-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 16, 2023 **
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
E.K. Wade appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order
denying relief from its June 2010 prefiling order declaring Wade a vexatious
litigant and requiring him to obtain permission before filing additional actions
related to his termination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
* 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).
FILED
JUN 16 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Reviewing for an abuse of discretion, Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500
F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007), we affirm.
Denial of Wade’s motion to reopen the case was not an abuse of discretion.
We liberally construe Wade’s motion as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b). To the extent the motion sought relief under either Rule 60(b)(1) or
60(b)(3), the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it because the motion was
filed more than one year after judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1);
Nevitt v. United States, 886 F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1989). To the extent that the
motion fell within Rule 60(b)(4) or 60(b)(6), Wade failed to establish any
circumstances justifying relief. See Mackey v. Hoffman, 682 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th
Cir. 2012).
We do not consider the underlying prefiling order because the notice of
appeal is untimely as to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi); Stephanie-
Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir.
2007).
AFFIRMED.1
1 The motions for reconsideration (Dkt. Nos. 20, 21) are DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --