Case Name: Jason McKinley WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sherman HATCHER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-21
Citations: 671 F. App'x 693
Docket Number: No. 16-15028
Parties: Jason McKinley WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sherman HATCHER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY,' and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 693–694

Head Matter:
Jason McKinley WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sherman HATCHER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15028
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 21, 2016
Jason McKinley Ward, Pro Se
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGNV—Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY,' and FISHER, 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
Nevada state prisoner Jason McKinley Ward appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and denying his request for sanctions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir. 2001) (motion to reopen); Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2005) (sanctions). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ward's motion to reopen the action and motion for sanctions against defendants because Ward did not demonstrate grounds for relief. See Weeks, 246 F.3d at 1236 (holding that an action is not properly reopened "absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Holgate, 425 F.3d at 677-78 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the requirements for sanctions).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All outstanding requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.