Case Name: Robert GANT; Betty Gant, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Roger VANDERPOOL, Sheriff of Pinal County; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-20
Citations: 529 F. App'x 852
Docket Number: No. 11-15218
Parties: Robert GANT; Betty Gant, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Roger VANDERPOOL, Sheriff of Pinal County; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 529
Pages: 852–853

Head Matter:
Robert GANT; Betty Gant, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Roger VANDERPOOL, Sheriff of Pinal County; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-15218.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2013.
Filed June 20, 2013.
Robert Gant, Arizona City, AZ, pro se.
Betty Gant, Arizona City, AZ, pro se.
Eileen Dennis Gilbride, Esquire, Georgia Ann Staton, Esquire, Jones Skelton & Hochuli, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Gant's request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Robert Gant appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider the jury verdict for defendants in his employment action alleging that he was improperly terminated from his position as an officer with the Pinal County Sheriffs Office. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.
To the extent that Gant's motion for reconsideration was based on newly discovered evidence or fraud, the motion was untimely as it was filed over two years after entry of judgment. See Lyon v. Agusta S.P.A., 252 F.3d 1078, 1088 (9th Cir.2001) (motion for relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence or fraud must be brought within one year of the judgment being attacked). Gant cannot avoid the time bar as to these bases for reconsideration by invoking Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) because a Rule 60(b)(6) motion "must be for some reason other than the five reasons preceding it under the rule." Id. at 1088-89 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To the extent that the motion was properly brought under Rule 60(b)(6), the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying it because Gant failed to establish "manifest injustice" to warrant relief from judgment. Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103 (explaining that Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) "is used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Defendants' pending motions to strike are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.