FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD B. GOODIN, No. 14-17226
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00074-DAE-
BMK
v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE MEMORANDUM*
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Richard B. Goodin appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing without prejudice his diversity
action, and his motion for reconsideration of that denial. We review for an abuse
*
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).
of discretion the district court’s denial of motions to alter or amend and for
reconsideration. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60(b)). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Goodin’s motion to
alter or amend the district court’s judgment or his motion for reconsideration of the
denial of that motion because Goodin failed to demonstrate any basis for relief.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds
for relief from judgment under Rules 59 and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure); Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir. 1987) (setting
forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(a)).
We do not consider Goodin’s contentions regarding his prior appeal. See
Goodin v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 370 F. App’x 789 (9th Cir. 2010).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-17226