Home/Ninth Circuit/Tony Hines v. Dwight Neven

Tony Hines v. Dwight Neven

551 F. App'x 346
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 2, 2014·No. 12-17841·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Tony Hines appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) following the dismissal of Hines’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as barred by the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hines’s motion for relief from judgment because Hines failed to establish grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). See id. at 1263 (grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)); see also Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.250 (grounds for equitable tolling under Nevada law); Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (§ 1983 actions are governed by the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims; two-year statute of limitations under Nevada law).

Because the scope of this appeal is limited to review of the November 26, 2012, order denying Hines’s motion for reconsideration, we do not address the other issues that Hines raises.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

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

Tony Hines v. Dwight Neven, 551 F. App'x 346 (9th Cir. 2014).

551 F. App'x 346 (Tony Hines v. Dwight Neven) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Raymond Razo Perez v. Jerry Allen Seevers
869 F.2d 425 (Ninth Circuit, 1989)
School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)