Villery v. Crounse

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: 23-1946
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JARED M. VILLERY, No. 23-1946 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:18-cv-01623-JLT-SKO v. MEMORANDUM* DAVID CROUNSE; ALICIA GUERRERO; TODD HAAK; EDWARD GARCIA; K. HOLLAND; R. GROVES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2025**

Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Former California state prisoner Jared M. Villery appeals pro se from the

district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b). Flores v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 721, 731 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Villery’s motion for

relief from judgment because the record does not support Villery’s contention that

he did not receive the court’s orders and thus Villery failed to show he was entitled

to relief. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S.

380, 393-94 (1993) (discussing grounds for relief from judgment under Rule

60(b)). Contrary to Villery’s contention, the district court did not err in denying

the motion without addressing his request for an extension of time to file a reply

because the request was untimely under the local rules. See Christian v. Mattel,

Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The district court has considerable

latitude in managing the parties’ motion practice and enforcing local rules that

place parameters on briefing.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-1946