FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES FREDRICK MENEFIELD, No. 12-17600
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-02406-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAMES A. YATES, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted December 17, 2013***
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner James Fredrick Menefield appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
for relief from a stipulated voluntary dismissal. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a
Rule 60(b) motion. United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962
F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Menefield’s motion
for relief because Menefield failed to show that defendants had repudiated their
settlement agreement. See Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, Local
Union 162, 937 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Repudiation of a settlement
agreement that terminated litigation pending before a court constitutes an
extraordinary circumstance, and it justifies vacating the court’s prior dismissal
order.”); see also United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc., 962 F.2d at 856 (“The
construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles
of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.”); Taylor v.
Johnston, 539 P.2d 425, 137 (Cal. 1975) (discussing the requirements for
establishing repudiation under California law).
We reject Menefield’s contentions concerning the Prisoners Litigation
Reform Act, the district court’s purported failure to consider evidence, and its
alleged rejection of his sincerely-held religious beliefs.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-17600