Kohl v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
This text of 17 F. App'x 706 (Kohl v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Craig Steven Kohl appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in Kohl’s 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, Har-man v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.
Because Kohl failed to meet his burden of showing: “(1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances which would [707]*707justify relief,” the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kohl’s motion for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993).
Appellees’ request for attorney’s fees and costs is denied without prejudice to filing a request in a separate motion. See Fed. R.App. P. 38, 39; 9th Cir. R. 39-1.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 F. App'x 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kohl-v-las-vegas-metropolitan-police-department-ca9-2001.