Harold B. Shamburger v. M. DODSON, Correctional Sgt.; A. MURPHY, Correctional Sgt.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HAROLD B. SHAMBURGER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. DODSON, Correctional Sgt.; A.
MURPHY, Correctional Sgt.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17071
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-03745-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Harold B. Shamburger, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment in his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction
FILED
JAN 02 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17071 2
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Shamburger’s
motion to alter or amend the judgment because Shamburger failed to demonstrate
grounds for such relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) and noting that “[t]he overwhelming weight
of authority is that the failure to file documents in an original motion or opposition
does not turn the late filed documents into ‘newly discovered evidence.’” (citation
omitted)).
The scope of this appeal is limited to review of the July 15, 2011 order
denying Shamburger’s motion to alter or amend the judgment; accordingly, we do
not address other issues raised by Shamburger.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --