Rust v. TMC Healthcare

Ninth Circuit

Rust v. TMC Healthcare

141 F. App'x 668

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 15, 2005·No. No. 05-15120; D.C. No. CV-01-00432-CKJ·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jan C. Rust appeals pro se the district court’s order denying her second motion for relief from the judgment dismissing her retaliation action against her former employer. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see Casey v. Albertson’s, Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rust’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) because Rust’s evidence did not establish that defendant committed fraud or misrepresentation in procuring the judgment. See id. at 1260-61. Furthermore, Rust’s second motion merely reargued issues that the court had already considered and rejected, see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir.2001), and the motion did not satisfy any other grounds for relief, see School Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Jan C. Rust appeals pro se the district court’s order denying her second motion for relief from the judgment dismissing her retaliation action against her former employer. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see Casey v. Albertson’s, Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rust’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) because Rust’s evidence did not establish that defendant committed fraud or misrepresentation in procuring the judgment. See id. at 1260-61. Furthermore, Rust’s second motion merely reargued issues that the court had already considered and rejected, see Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir.2001), and the motion did not satisfy any other grounds for relief, see School Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Rust v. TMC Healthcare, 141 F. App'x 668 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

141 F. App'x 668 (Rust v. TMC Healthcare) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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

Shannon Casey v. Albertson's Inc., a Delaware Corporation

362 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Opinion

Related