Michael Beattie v. L. Romero ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL LOUIS BEATTIE, No. 17-55833
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01448-H-JMA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
L. ROMERO, Corrrectional Officer; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael Louis Beattie appeals pro se from the
district court’s post-judgment order denying his motion to vacate summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham &
*
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).
Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Beattie’s Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion because Beattie failed to demonstrate any grounds warranting
such relief. See id. at 1100-03 (discussing grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), and
explaining that Rule 60(b)(6) relief is granted “only where extraordinary
circumstances” are present (citations and quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to
Beattie’s contention, Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2017) (per
curiam), is factually distinguishable from his case.
We do not consider Beattie’s contentions concerning the merits of the
underlying case because “[a]n appeal from a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings
up only the denial of the motion for review, not the merits of the underlying
judgment.” Molloy v. Wilson, 878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th Cir. 1989).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2