Opinion
No. 19-15868
07-17-2020
E. K. WADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOODY GILLILAND; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00425-WHA MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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. 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.