
    Kevin L. PERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, a public entity, Defendant-Appellee. Kevin L. Perry, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Veolia Transport, DBA Veolia Transportation Services, Inc., A Maryland Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-56618, No. 14-56707
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 7, 2016
    Kevin L. Perry, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Kevin L. Perry appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant order (No. 14-56618), and the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from judgment (No. 14-56707). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion both the district court’s denial of leave to file a complaint pursuant to a vexatious litigant order, In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2000), and the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion, Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

As to No. 14-56618, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Perry’s motion for leave to file a complaint because Perry failed to comply with the vexatious litigant order entered against him. See Perry v. Veolia Transp., et al., No. 11-CV-176-LAB-RBB, 2011 WL 4566449 at *9-12 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2011). Perry failed to submit a copy of the vexatious litigant order with his motion as required and falsely certified that his proposed complaint raised new issues not previously raised in a prior state or federal action.

As to No. 14-56707, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Perry’s motion for relief from judgment where Perry never appealed from the judgment, presented no reason for the nearly three-year delay in filing his motion, and did not establish any basis for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)—(6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (Rule 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6) motions must be filed “within a reasonable time”); see also In re Pac. Far East Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (“What constitutes a reasonable time depends on the facts of each case.”).

14-56618: AFFIRMED.

14-56707: AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     