Case ID: f-appx_507/html/0681-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harold B. SHAMBURGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. DODSON, Correctional Sgt.; A. Murphy, Correctional Sgt., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-17071.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 2, 2013.
    Harold B. Shamburger, Crescent City, CA, pro se.
    Virginia I. Papan, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes' this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.