Case ID: f-appx_385/html/0655-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Johnny Earl EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-15070.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 22, 2010.
    Johnny Earl Evans, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Diana Esquivel, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Johnny Earl Evans, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his First and Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

In his motion for reconsideration, Evans repeated the arguments raised in his oppositions to the motion to dismiss: that both his grievance and citizen’s complaint satisfied the administrative exhaustion requirement or, in the alternative, that he was excused from compliance with the exhaustion requirement. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for reconsideration because Evans failed to establish “manifest injustice” to warrant relief from judgment. Id. at 1103 (explaining that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) “is used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Evans’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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