Estes v. Burrows

Ninth Circuit

Estes v. Burrows

172 F. App'x 161

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 2006

DocketNo. 05-15841

StatusPublished

This text of 172 F. App'x 161 (Estes v. Burrows) 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

Estes v. Burrows, 172 F. App'x 161 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[162]*162MEMORANDUM

**

Nevada state prisoner Donald Glenn Estes appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the summary judgment in favor of defendants in his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider, Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir.2000), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, First Pac. Bank v. Gilleran, 40 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.

Estes’s sole contention is that he did not receive the Rand notice the district court mailed to him. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 961-62 (9th Cir.1998). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration on this ground because Estes conceded that he had received a Rand notice a few months earlier in another action and therefore was aware of the deadline for filing opposition to summary judgement and the possible consequences of failing to oppose. See id.

Moreover, Estes’s opposition to summary judgment does not raise a triable issue of fact that defendants acted with deliberate indifference by knowingly exposing him to tuberculosis. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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

[162]*162MEMORANDUM

**

Nevada state prisoner Donald Glenn Estes appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the summary judgment in favor of defendants in his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider, Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir.2000), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, First Pac. Bank v. Gilleran, 40 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.

Estes’s sole contention is that he did not receive the Rand notice the district court mailed to him. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 961-62 (9th Cir.1998). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration on this ground because Estes conceded that he had received a Rand notice a few months earlier in another action and therefore was aware of the deadline for filing opposition to summary judgement and the possible consequences of failing to oppose. See id.

Moreover, Estes’s opposition to summary judgment does not raise a triable issue of fact that defendants acted with deliberate indifference by knowingly exposing him to tuberculosis. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 F. App'x 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estes-v-burrows-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack