H. Homer Wilson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Bonnie Youngdahl, in Her Individual and Official Capacities,jose Fregoso, in His Individual and Official Capacities;kieth Cook, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Allenweinger, Supervisor of the Los Angeles Branch, Department Ofcorrections (doc), in His Individual and Official Capacity;gary Mendoza, Commissioner, (doc) in His Individual Andofficial Capacity; Steven Schwaber, Receiver, in Hisindividual and Official Capacity; California Department Ofcorrections, in Its Official Capacity; Christine Bender,former Commissioner, (doc); Thomas S. Sayles, Formercommissioner, (doc), Defendants-appellees, 141 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 1998)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 141 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 1998) .Submitted March 10, 1998. **Decided March 18, 1998

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Lourdes G. Baird, District Judge, Presiding.

Before FLETCHER, BEEZER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM* 

Former California state prisoner H. Homer Wilson appeals pro se the district court's denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider1  the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging employees of the California Department of Corrections violated his constitutional rights, conspired to prosecute him, confiscated his personal property, defamed him and interfered with his livelihood as a securities dealer. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.2 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wilson's motion for reconsideration because Wilson raised no new arguments or facts supporting his claim that the district court should reconsider the dismissal of his section 1983 action. See Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 253-54 (9th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

 1

The district court construed Wilson's motion for leave to amend his complaint as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the judgment

 2

The scope of this appeal was properly limited by the Appellate Commissioner to review of the district court's order denying Wilson's motion for reconsideration because the motion for reconsideration was not filed within ten days of entry of judgment, and the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a); Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 254 (9th Cir. 1995)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.