Cary Pickett v. Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARY PICKETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE
COMMISSIONERS; NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
DIVISION OF PAROLE AND
PROBATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Nos. 13-17625,
14-15291
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01695-PMP-
VCF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Nevada state prisoner Cary Pickett appeals
pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
FILED
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

alleging constitutional claims arising out of parole violation hearings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 in denying Pickett’s Rule 60(b)
motion because Pickett did not demonstrate any grounds warranting such relief.
See id. at 1100-04 (discussing grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), and explaining
that Rule 60(b)(6) relief is granted “only where extraordinary circumstances” are
present (citations and quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Pickett’s
contentions, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Pickett
failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s actions amounted to virtual abandonment
entitling him to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See id. at 1104 (finding plaintiff not
entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) even though “decision may have been driven
by inept or erroneous advice or conduct of her counsel”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pickett’s motion to
file an amended complaint after the deadline set forth in the pretrial scheduling
order because Pickett failed to demonstrate good cause. See Johnson v. Mammoth
Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-10 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of
review and “good cause” requirement to modify a scheduling order).
13-17625 2

-- 2 of 3 --

We reject as meritless Pickett’s contentions that the magistrate judge acted
improperly.
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
13-17625 3

-- 3 of 3 --