Case Name: Reginald C. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOBEL; Gary Hill, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-24
Citations: 411 F. App'x 973
Docket Number: No. 09-16620
Parties: Reginald C. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOBEL; Gary Hill, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 411
Pages: 973–974

Head Matter:
Reginald C. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOBEL; Gary Hill, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-16620.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
Filed Jan. 24, 2011.
Reginald Clarence Howard, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
Kerry St. Clair Doyle, AGNV-Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Reginald C. Howard, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the order dismissing the action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.Sd 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Howard's Rule 60(b) motion because Howard failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendants engaged in fraud or other misconduct in connection with the settlement agreement, or to establish extraordinary circumstances or any other ground warranting relief from the order of dismissal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 60(b)(3) requirements); Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103 (Rule 60(b)(6) requirements).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.