Nehemiah Robinson v. T. Catlett

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 10-56885 · 2012-02-29 · Unpublished

Nehemiah ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. CATLETT, Sergeant; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Area: other
Panel: Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Mary M. McKeown, Jay S. Bybee

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NEHEMIAH ROBINSON, No. 10-56885 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00161-H-BLM v. MEMORANDUM * T. CATLETT, Sergeant; et al., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Marilyn L. Huff, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, AND BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Nehemiah Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants delayed assigning him to a lower bunk, confiscated his * 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). cane, denied him pain medication, and retaliated against him. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 807 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Robinson’s post-judgment motion because Robinson failed to show any newly discovered evidence, intervening change in controlling law, clear error, or manifest injustice.

See id. at 807-08 (setting forth grounds justifying reconsideration).

Robinson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

2 10-56885