Dwight A. Staten v. JAMES WALKER, Warden;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DWIGHT A. STATEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JAMES WALKER, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16011
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00517-JAM-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Dwight A. Staten, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment dismissing his 42
FILED
JUN 17 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16011 2
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants fabricated a rules violation report
against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Staten’s motion to
reconsider because he did not advance any applicable ground for relief under either
Rule 59(e) or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See id. at 1262-63
(setting forth requirements for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60).
We do not consider issues that were not raised in Staten’s opening brief. See
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --