JASON WARD V. SHERMAN HATCHER, No. 16-15028 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 21 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JASON McKINLEY WARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15028 D.C. No. 3:89-cv-00265-HDM MEMORANDUM* SHERMAN HATCHER; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoner Jason McKinley Ward appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and denying his request for sanctions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th * 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). Cir. 2001) (motion to reopen); Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir. 2005) (sanctions). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ward’s motion to reopen the action and motion for sanctions against defendants because Ward did not demonstrate grounds for relief. See Weeks, 246 F.3d at 1236 (holding that an action is not properly reopened “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Holgate, 425 F.3d at 677-78 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the requirements for sanctions). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All outstanding requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-15028

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.