UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
January 24, 2011
REGINALD C. HOWARD, PLAINTIFF - APPELLANT,
GOBEL; GARY HILL, DEFENDANTS - APPELLEES.
D.C. No. 3:03-cv-00493-HDMRAM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Submitted January 10, 2011*fn2
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reginald C. Howard, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the order dismissing the action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Howard's Rule 60(b) motion because Howard failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that defendants engaged in fraud or other misconduct in connection with the settlement agreement, or to establish extraordinary circumstances or any other ground warranting relief from the order of dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 60(b)(3) requirements); Latshaw, 452 F.3d at 1103 (Rule 60(b)(6) requirements).