Case Name: Peter ERIKSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHELAN COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-13
Citations: 234 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: No. 05-36203
Parties: Peter ERIKSEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CHELAN COUNTY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
Peter ERIKSEN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CHELAN COUNTY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-36203.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007.
Filed June 13, 2007.
Peter Eriksen, Royal, WA, pro se.
Gary A. Riesen, Esq., Chelan County Prosecuting Attorney, Wenatchee, WA, Brian A. Christensen, Esq., Canfield & Associates, Jennifer D. Homer, Esq., Jerry J. Moberg, Esq., Jerry Moberg & Associates, Stephen J. Hallstrom, Grant County Jail, Thomas Middleton, Ephrata, WA, John P. Bowman, Esq., Edward J. Bruya, Esq., Keefe King & Bowman, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court denied Peter Erik-sen's second motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing Eriksen's claims alleging violations of his state and federal constitutional rights and state tort law. Eriksen appeals. We review for abuse of discretion, see Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir.1993), and affirm.
The district court construed Eriksen's motion for reconsideration as a Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to obtain relief from judgment or order. "Rule 60 is 'remedial in nature and . must be liberally applied.' " TCI Group Life Ins. Plan v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir.2001) (quoting Falk v. Allen, 739 F.2d 461, 463 (9th Cir.1984)). Eriksen's motion made numerous arguments regarding the Kun-dert Family Trust that led to his arrest, and argued the merits of his subsequent 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort claims.
The motion does not, however, identify an error in the judgment or otherwise provide a factual or legal basis for awarding relief under Rule 60(b). The district court did not abuse its discretion.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.