Reginald C. Howard v. Gobel; Gary Hill

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
REGINALD C. HOWARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GOBEL; GARY HILL,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16620
D.C. No. 3:03-cv-00493-HDM-
RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reginald C. Howard, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b) for relief from the order dismissing the action. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JAN 24 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16620 2
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Latshaw v. Trainer
Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Howard’s Rule
60(b) motion because Howard failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence
that defendants engaged in fraud or other misconduct in connection with the
settlement agreement, or to establish extraordinary circumstances or any other
ground warranting relief from the order of dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b);
Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 60(b)(3)
requirements); Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103 (Rule 60(b)(6) requirements).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --