Case Name: Tony HINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwight W. NEVEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-02
Citations: 551 F. App'x 346
Docket Number: No. 12-17841
Parties: Tony HINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwight W. NEVEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 346–346

Head Matter:
Tony HINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dwight W. NEVEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-17841.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
Filed Jan. 2, 2014.
Tony Hines, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
Clark G. Leslie, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, 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 Tony Hines appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) following the dismissal of Hines's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as barred by the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hines's motion for relief from judgment because Hines failed to establish grounds for relief under Rule 60(b). See id. at 1263 (grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)); see also Nev.Rev.Stat. § 11.250 (grounds for equitable tolling under Nevada law); Perez v. Seevers, 869 F.2d 425, 426 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (§ 1983 actions are governed by the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury claims; two-year statute of limitations under Nevada law).
Because the scope of this appeal is limited to review of the November 26, 2012, order denying Hines's motion for reconsideration, we do not address the other issues that Hines raises.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.