From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Billups v. Howard

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 27, 2010
No. 09-15571 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-15571.

Submitted August 10, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

August 27, 2010.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, Chief District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 1:04-cv-05107-AWI-DLB.

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Derrick Billups, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's decision denying a motion to reconsider. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court determined that Billups failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his complaint because his last administrative appeal was completed approximately six months after he filed his complaint in district court. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199-1201 (9th Cir. 2002). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Billups's motion to reconsider because Billups did not present grounds warranting relief. See Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (on reconsideration, a party must "demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion" (internal quotations and citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Billups v. Howard

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 27, 2010
No. 09-15571 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2010)
Case details for

Billups v. Howard

Case Details

Full title:DERRICK LEE BILLUPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEAN E. HOWARD; MATTHEW C…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 27, 2010

Citations

No. 09-15571 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2010)