Jason Ward v. Sherman Hatcher

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASON McKINLEY WARD, No. 16-15028
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:89-cv-00265-HDM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SHERMAN HATCHER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Jason McKinley Ward appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and
denying his request for sanctions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review for an abuse of discretion. Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2001) (motion to reopen); Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675 (9th Cir.
2005) (sanctions). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ward’s motion to
reopen the action and motion for sanctions against defendants because Ward did
not demonstrate grounds for relief. See Weeks, 246 F.3d at 1236 (holding that an
action is not properly reopened “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the
district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error,
or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); Holgate, 425 F.3d at 677-78 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting
forth the requirements for sanctions).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All outstanding requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-15028