NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted May 17, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00198-SOM-KJM
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Kaleinani Virginia Davis Kinimaka appeals pro se from the district court's order denying her motion to intervene. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a denial of a motion to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), and for an abuse of discretion a district court's determination of whether or not intervention is timely. Smith v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 830 F.3d 843, 853 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
The district court properly denied as untimely Kinimaka's motion to intervene due to Kinimaka's failure to justify the reason for and length of the delay. See id. at 853-54, 857 (setting forth criteria for granting intervention and factors for determining whether intervention was timely).
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).