Case ID: f-appx_707/html/0498-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Samuel DODSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-17264
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 22, 2017
    Samuel Dodson, Pro Se
    D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV — Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas) Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Samuel Dodson, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. Foley v. Biter, 793 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2016), We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dodson’s motion for relief because Dodson failed to show “extraordinary circumstances prevented [him] from timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” Greenawalt v. Stewart, 105 F.3d 1268, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,