Case ID: f-appx_384/html/0670-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Donald D. BAILEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-17305.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 21, 2010.
    Donald D. Bailey, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Jennifer A. Giaimo, Esquire, Amy Mat-chison, Steven Kiyoto Uejio, Jonathan S. Cohen, John B. Snyder, III, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Jane L. Westby, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
    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, Bailey's motion for a hearing is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Donald D. Bailey appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment, following a bench trial, in his action seeking an income tax refund for 1992. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir.1987), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3) because Bailey failed to satisfy the requirements for relief. See Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d 1082, 1093 (9th Cir.2003) (listing requirements for relief under Rule 60(b)(2) and explaining that information known by an attorney prior to judgment cannot be considered newly discovered evidence even if a client leams of it only after judgment); De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880-81 (9th Cir.2000) (listing requirements for relief under Rule 60(b)(3) and affirming denial of relief where party failed to present evidence that testimony was false).

Bailey’s motion for an extension of time to file a motion for leave to file supplemental briefing is denied.

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