DeVaughn v. County of Riverside

Ninth Circuit

DeVaughn v. County of Riverside

329 F. App'x 129

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 6, 2009

DocketNo. 08-56153

StatusPublished

This text of 329 F. App'x 129 (DeVaughn v. County of Riverside) 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

DeVaughn v. County of Riverside, 329 F. App'x 129 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Michael O. DeVaughn, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his post-judgment motions to set aside the judgment and for reconsideration after dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ensley, 174 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir.1999) (motion for reconsideration), Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2000) (motion for relief from judgment), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying DeVaughn’s Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment. DeVaughn’s arguments that defendants instigated an illegal investigation of him and confiscated his legal files more than two years after his complaint was filed did not justify setting aside the judgment. See Sch. Dist No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth elements for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)).

.The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying DeVaughn’s Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to reconsider because it was untimely. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) (requiring that a motion to alter or amend judgment “shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of judgment”).

DeVaughn’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Michael O. DeVaughn, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his post-judgment motions to set aside the judgment and for reconsideration after dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ensley, 174 F.3d 977, 987 (9th Cir.1999) (motion for reconsideration), Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2000) (motion for relief from judgment), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying DeVaughn’s Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment. DeVaughn’s arguments that defendants instigated an illegal investigation of him and confiscated his legal files more than two years after his complaint was filed did not justify setting aside the judgment. See Sch. Dist No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth elements for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)).

.The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying DeVaughn’s Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to reconsider because it was untimely. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) (requiring that a motion to alter or amend judgment “shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of judgment”).

DeVaughn’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2511, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3292 Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Donald Joe Ensley, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant v. Laura L. Ensley, Defendant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee, and Kevin Burke Burke Group, Counter-Defendants-Appellees

174 F.3d 977 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Walter Bateman v. United States Postal Service William J. Henderson, 1 Postmaster General, and Aaron Johnson Ben Fukumitsu David Burns Jose Mallari

231 F.3d 1220 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 F. App'x 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/devaughn-v-county-of-riverside-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack