FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN A. GIBBS, No. 15-55462
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:13-cv-00382-CAS-KK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
C. HERNANDEZ, Officer, individual &
official capacity,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Benjamin Gibbs, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s
order denying his motion for reconsideration in his action under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971),
*
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).
alleging constitutional violations in connection with a contraband search. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.
1993), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gibbs’s motion for
reconsideration because Gibbs failed to set forth any grounds for relief. See id. at
1262-63; see also Schikore v. BankAmerica Supplemental Retirement Plan, 269
F.3d 956, 961 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The mailbox rule provides that the proper and
timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that the document
has been received by the addressee in the usual time. It is a settled feature of the
federal common law.”).
Gibbs’s evidence regarding his outgoing mail, raised for the first time in his
reply brief, is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-55462