NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
E. K. WADE, No. 19-15868
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00425-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WOODY GILLILAND; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
E. K. Wade appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order
denying relief from its June 24, 2010 pre-filing order. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Puente Ariz. v. Arpaio,
821 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 2016) (denial of preliminary injunction); Sch. Dist.
*
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).
No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)
(denial of reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)). We may
affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055,
1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Denial of Wade’s motion for injunctive relief from the district court’s pre-
filing order was not an abuse of discretion because Wade failed to demonstrate any
basis for such relief. See Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d
953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish
that he is likely to succeed on the merits, among other requirements); Latshaw v.
Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining
requirements for Rule 60(b)(6) relief).
We do not consider the underlying pre-filing order because the notice of
appeal is untimely as to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (setting forth
applicable 60-day time for filing notice of appeal); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v.
Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely
notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).
Wade’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-15868