*2 Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

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 Cir. 1993). We affirm.

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.

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. 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. Cir. 1989) (“What constitutes a reasonable time depends on the facts of each case.”).

14-56618: AFFIRMED.

14-56707: AFFIRMED.

[**] The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).