Case ID: f-appx_48/html/0703-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Darrell SHORTT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ernie ROE, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 01-57181.
    D.C. No. CV-99-03806-WJR.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 10, 2002.
    
    Decided Oct. 16, 2002.
    Before GOODWIN, RYMER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Regardless of whether Shortt’s Rule 60(b) motion is characterized as a successive petition or a challenge unrelated to the merits of his habeas claim, Shortt’s appeal cannot succeed. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion because no extraordinary circumstances exist that would justify relief. See Tomlin v. McDaniel, 865 F.2d 209, 210-211 (9th Cir.1989) (holding change in applicable law did not constitute extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.