The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
08-17305•Donald D. Bailey v. United States of America
08-17305Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 21, 2010
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). Accordingly, Bailey’s
motion for a hearing is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD D. BAILEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-17305
D.C. No. 4:05-CV-00310-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Donald D. Bailey appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for relief from judgment, following a bench trial, in his action seeking an
income tax refund for 1992. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
FILED
JUN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS
-- 1 of 2 --
08-17305 2
We review for an abuse of discretion, Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3) because Bailey failed to satisfy the
requirements for relief. See Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d
1082, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (listing requirements for relief under Rule 60(b)(2) and
explaining that information known by an attorney prior to judgment cannot be
considered newly discovered evidence even if a client learns of it only after
judgment); De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880-81 (9th
Cir. 2000) (listing requirements for relief under Rule 60(b)(3) and affirming denial
of relief where party failed to present evidence that testimony was false).
Bailey’s motion for an extension of time to file a motion for leave to file
supplemental briefing is denied.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.