Hammerlord v. Elliott

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT M. NORMAN HAMMERLORD, No. 24-1095 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00663-JO-KSC Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* MARA W. ELLIOTT, San Diego City Attorney; TODD GLORIA, San Diego City Mayor, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jinsook Ohta, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. M. Norman Hammerlord appeals pro se from the district court’s order striking post-judgment filings in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of * 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). discretion. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 403-04 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Hammerlord’s post- judgment filings, which were filed months after the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, closed the case, and denied Hammerlord’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. See id. at 404 (holding that district courts have the inherent power to control their dockets, including the power to strike filings from the docket). To the extent that Hammerlord seeks to challenge the district court’s orders dismissing the complaint without leave to amend or denying the motion for reconsideration, we lack jurisdiction because Hammerlord failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 4(a)(4)(vi); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 24-1095