Lane Grow v. Adam Garcia;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LANE GROW,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ADAM GARCIA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17055
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00105-LRH-
RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 21, 2011**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Lane Grow appeals from the district court’s order denying him an extension
of time to file a notice of appeal from the court’s summary judgment in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims related to his termination from the
University of Nevada Reno Police Department. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
NOV 28 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-17055 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d
853, 858 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Grow failed to
establish good cause or excusable neglect for an extension of time to file his notice
of appeal after weighing all factors relevant to its equitable determination. See
Fed. R. App. P 4(a)(5)(A) (a party must show good cause or excusable neglect to
obtain extension of time to file notice of appeal); Pincay, 389 F.3d at 855 (listing
factors to determine excusable neglect). The district court did not clearly err in
concluding that counsel’s last-minute excuse regarding computer problems was
manufactured, unverifiable, or implausible, and that it failed to establish either
good cause based on events beyond counsel’s control or otherwise constitute
excusable neglect. See id. at 859 (district court is in a better position to evaluate
relevant factors for excusable neglect in each case).
Grow’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --