to pay an initial partial filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we vacate and remand. Patterson moved for reconsideration and submitted proof to explain his apparent failure to comply with the district court’s prior order. Because the district court summarily denied the motion, and relief appears to be warranted under either Rule 59(e) or 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we vacate the order denying the motion to reconsider and remand for further proceedings. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (explaining requirements for Rules 59(e) and 60(b)); see also Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). VACATED and REMANDED. ** This disposition is
holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint holding that district court abused its discretion in denying rule 60b1 motion without conducting equitable analysis holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen