Reginald Howard v. Gobel, et al, No. 09-16620 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JAN 24 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REGINALD C. HOWARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 09-16620 D.C. No. 3:03-cv-00493-HDMRAM v. MEMORANDUM * GOBEL; GARY HILL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 10, 2011 ** Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Reginald C. Howard, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the order dismissing the action. We have jurisdiction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Howard s Rule 60(b) motion because Howard failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendants engaged in fraud or other misconduct in connection with the settlement agreement, or to establish extraordinary circumstances or any other ground warranting relief from the order of dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Casey v. Albertson s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 60(b)(3) requirements); Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103 (Rule 60(b)(6) requirements). AFFIRMED. 2 09-16620

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.