N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LONNIE C HARL ES B R OW N , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. M ATTHEW

C ATE, Dire c tor; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16971 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-00077-GSA M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gary S. Austin, M a g istra

te Judge , Pre s iding ** Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2015 *** B e fore : WALLAC E, R AW LINSON, a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Lonnie C h arle s B rown, a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a ls pro sefrom

the 

# FIL ED DEC 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** B rown c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra te judge . Se e28 U.S.C . § 636(c ).

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).distric t c o urt’ s orde rs de ny ing his July 14, 2014 a

nd August 14, 2014 m

otions for re c o nside ration in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging tha t prison sta ff use d a se c urity de v ic e to se xua lly

a ssa ult him . W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wfor an a buse of disc re tion, Sc h. Dist. N o. 1J , Multnomah C

ty ., Or. v . AC andS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th C i r. 1993), a nd we a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng B rown’ s July

14, 2014 a nd August 14, 2014 m

otions for re c onside rat ion be c a use B rown fa ile d to de m onstra

te grounds wa

rranting suc h

re lie f. Se eid. at 1263 (se tting forth grounds for re c onside ration unde r the Fe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e d

ure ); Latshaw

v . Traine r W

ortham & C o., Inc ., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th C i r. 2006) (e xpla ining tha t Fe d. R . C iv. P. 60(b)(6) re lie f is gra nte d “ only

whe re e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta

nc e s” are p re se nt a

n d the pa rty m ust “ de m onstra

te both injury

and c irc um sta

nc e s be y ond his c ontrol tha

t pre ve nte d

him from proc e e ding with . . . the a c tion in a prope r fa shion” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d, e llipsis in origina l)). W e la c k jurisdic tion to a ddre ss B rown’ s c ha l le nge s to thedistric t c ourt’ s orde rs de ny ing his motion to a ppoint c ounse l a

nd dismissing his c om

pla i nt, be c a use B rown fa ile d to filea tim e ly notic e of a

ppe a l of the unde rly ing judgme nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notic e of a ppe a l m ust be file d within 30 da

y s of fina l judgm e nt); Fe d. R . App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (the tim e to file an a ppe a l runs from

1 4 - 1 6 9 7 1 2the e ntry of the orde r disposing of a post-judgme nt tolling m

otion). W e re je c t B rown’ s c onte ntion tha t he wa s pre

j udic e d by

the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia , Fre sno. B rown’ s m otion for re l ie f, file d on Oc tobe r 27, 2015, is denie d be c a use he provide s no le ga l ba sis for there que ste d re lie f. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 6 9 7 1 3