Case Name: Mark S. MUSZYNSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.L. RUNNELS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-01
Citations: 441 F. App'x 483
Docket Number: No. 10-15808
Parties: Mark S. MUSZYNSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.L. RUNNELS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 483–483

Head Matter:
Mark S. MUSZYNSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.L. RUNNELS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-15808.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed July 1, 2011.
Mark S. Muszynski, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Kelli Hammond, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Jose Zeli-don-Zepeda, Attorney General Office, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, 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
Mark S. Muszynski, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration following a settlement agreement in his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Muszynski's motion for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 because Muszynski did not present any newly discovered evidence, nor did he advance any other viable ground for relief. See id. at 1263; Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 212 (9th Cir.1987) (evidence is not "newly discovered" if it was in the moving party's possession prior to judgment).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Muszyn-ski's contentions concerning the underlying merits of this action because it was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. See Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1507 (9th Cir.1995) (voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not appealable).
We deny Muszynski's request in his reply brief for appointment of counsel.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.