WANZA v. BYRNA (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Former Nevada state prisoner Tacuma J. M'Wanza appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We vacate and remand.

The district court denied M'wanza’s motion for reconsideration because M'wanza failed to establish a valid basis for relief. However, the district court focused on only one factor of the equitable test for excusable neglect. See Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (outlining the four-factor test for determining excusable neglect); see also Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that the test set out in Pioneer applies to Rule 60(b) motions). We vacate and remand for the district court to consider the four-factor test in the first instance.

VACATED and REMANDED.