Benjamin Gibbs v. C. Hernandez

Ninth Circuit

Benjamin Gibbs v. C. Hernandez

667 F. App'x 972

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 4, 2016

Docket15-55462

StatusUnpublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 972 (Benjamin Gibbs v. C. Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benjamin Gibbs v. C. Hernandez, 667 F. App'x 972 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Benjamin Gibbs, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging constitutional violations in connection with a contraband search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gibbs’s motion for reconsideration because Gibbs failed to set forth any grounds for relief. See id. at 1262-63; see also Schikore v. BankAmerica Supplemental Retirement Plan, 269 F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The mailbox rule provides that the proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that the document has been received by the addressee in the usual time. It is a settled feature of the federal common law.”).

Gibbs’s evidence regarding his outgoing mail, raised for the first time in his reply brief, is unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Benjamin Gibbs, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging constitutional violations in connection with a contraband search. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gibbs’s motion for reconsideration because Gibbs failed to set forth any grounds for relief. See id. at 1262-63; see also Schikore v. BankAmerica Supplemental Retirement Plan, 269 F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The mailbox rule provides that the proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that the document has been received by the addressee in the usual time. It is a settled feature of the federal common law.”).

Gibbs’s evidence regarding his outgoing mail, raised for the first time in his reply brief, is unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Karla SCHIKORE, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. BANKAMERICA SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

269 F.3d 956 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benjamin-gibbs-v-c-hernandez-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack