eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-07

E. Wade v. Woody Gilliland ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 17 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
E. K. WADE,                                     No. 19-15868
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00425-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WOODY GILLILAND; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 14, 2020**
Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
E. K. Wade appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order
denying relief from its June 24, 2010 pre-filing order. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of discretion. Puente Ariz. v. Arpaio,
    821 F.3d 1098
    , 1103 (9th Cir. 2016) (denial of preliminary injunction); Sch. Dist.
*
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).
No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)
(denial of reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)). We may
affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul,
    547 F.3d 1055
    ,
1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Denial of Wade’s motion for injunctive relief from the district court’s pre-
filing order was not an abuse of discretion because Wade failed to demonstrate any
basis for such relief. See Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco,
    746 F.3d 953
    , 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish
that he is likely to succeed on the merits, among other requirements); Latshaw v.
Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc.,
    452 F.3d 1097
    , 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining
requirements for Rule 60(b)(6) relief).
We do not consider the underlying pre-filing order because the notice of
appeal is untimely as to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (setting forth
applicable 60-day time for filing notice of appeal); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v.
Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc.,
    476 F.3d 701
    , 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely
notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).
Wade’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2                                   19-15868