Douglas Peterson v. Denny Blauer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DOUGLAS PETERSON, No. 10-36033
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00021-RKS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DENNY BLAUER; UNDER-SHERIFF
DEPUTIES; GEORGE ANDERSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Keith Strong, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 6, 2012
Portland, Oregon
Before: W. FLETCHER, FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Douglas Peterson appeals the district court’s denial of his postjudgment
motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief under Rule
60(b)(1). See Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000)
(reviewing denial of a Rule 60(b)(1) motion for an abuse of discretion). A district
court may correct an error of law under Rule 60(b)(1). See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v.
EEOC, 691 F.2d 438, 441 (9th Cir. 1982); Gila River Ranch, Inc. v. United States,
368 F.2d 354, 357 (9th Cir. 1966). The court’s refusal to do so here, however, was
not an abuse of discretion. The court identified the correct legal rule and its
determination that its summary judgment order did not contain a clear error of law
was neither illogical, implausible nor without support in inferences that could be
drawn from the record. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th
Cir. 2009) (en banc). Given the lack of admissible evidence supporting the
inference that the defendants were aware of Peterson’s requests for medical care,
showers and personal hygiene items, the district court plausibly concluded that the
defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986) (holding that “there is no issue for trial
unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return
a verdict for that party”).
AFFIRMED.
2