James Will Bonham v. Bank of America, Na

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES WILL BONHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-16542
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00406-MTL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
James Will Bonham appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his post-judgment motion for reconsideration in his action alleging federal claims
in connection with a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review for an abuse of discretion. Do Sung Uhm v. Humana, Inc., 620 F.3d
* 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
JUL 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16542
1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bonham’s motion
for reconsideration because Bonham failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) and 60(b)).
We do not consider Bonham’s contentions regarding the underlying
judgment because Bonham failed to file a timely notice of appeal of that judgment.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of
judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (vi) (post-judgment tolling motions
must be filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --