NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JERRY DILLINGHAM, No. 17-16288
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:13-cv-05777-YGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
T. JOHNSON, C/O; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jerry Dillingham, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his post-judgment motion for relief from summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
*
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).
district court’s denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Latshaw
v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dillingham’s
motion for reconsideration because Dillingham failed to show any grounds
warranting relief. See id. at 1103 (a party who moves for relief under Rule
60(b)(6) “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control that
prevented him from proceeding with . . . the action in a proper fashion” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Appellees’ motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 21) is denied as
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-16288