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.

*600 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.