Court Opinion

ID: 9891809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 18:00:44.535964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.718948
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KHALID N. KHAN,                                 No. 23-15538

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00954-DAD-AC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
AKA U.S.Bank.com, N.A., As Beneficiary;
S.A. CHALLENGER, INC.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Khalid N. Khan appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion for reconsideration following the district court’s judgment dismissing his

action arising from a home loan and foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). 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 in denying Khan’s motion for

reconsideration because Khan did not identify any mistake, newly discovered

evidence, fraud, or extraordinary circumstances that would justify relief. See id. at

1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   23-15538