FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD D. BAILEY, No. 08-17305
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:05-CV-00310-CKJ
v.
MEMORANDUM *
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Donald D. Bailey appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for relief from judgment, following a bench trial, in his action seeking an
income tax refund for 1992. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Bailey’s
motion for a hearing is denied.
We review for an abuse of discretion, Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3) because Bailey failed to satisfy the
requirements for relief. See Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d
1082, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (listing requirements for relief under Rule 60(b)(2) and
explaining that information known by an attorney prior to judgment cannot be
considered newly discovered evidence even if a client learns of it only after
judgment); De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880-81 (9th
Cir. 2000) (listing requirements for relief under Rule 60(b)(3) and affirming denial
of relief where party failed to present evidence that testimony was false).
Bailey’s motion for an extension of time to file a motion for leave to file
supplemental briefing is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-17305