Robert Gant v. Roger Vanderpool ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT GANT; BETTY GANT, No. 11-15218
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 2:03-cv-02077-EHC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROGER VANDERPOOL, Sheriff of Pinal
County; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013 **
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Robert Gant appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion to reconsider the jury verdict for defendants in his employment action
alleging that he was improperly terminated from his position as an officer with the
*
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). Accordingly, Gant’s request
for oral argument is denied.
Pinal County Sheriff’s Office. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion. Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452
F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
To the extent that Gant’s motion for reconsideration was based on newly
discovered evidence or fraud, the motion was untimely as it was filed over two
years after entry of judgment. See Lyon v. Agusta S.P.A., 252 F.3d 1078, 1088 (9th
Cir. 2001) (motion for relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence
or fraud must be brought within one year of the judgment being attacked). Gant
cannot avoid the time bar as to these bases for reconsideration by invoking Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(6) because a Rule 60(b)(6) motion “must be for some reason other
than the five reasons preceding it under the rule.” Id. at 1088-89 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). To the extent that the motion was properly
brought under Rule 60(b)(6), the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying it because Gant failed to establish “manifest injustice” to warrant relief
from judgment. Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103 (explaining that Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(6) “is used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Defendants’ pending motions to strike are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 11-15218