BEATTIE v. ROMERO (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Michael Louis Beattie appeals pro se from the district court's post-judgment order denying his motion to vacate summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Beattie's Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion because Beattie failed to demonstrate any grounds warranting such relief. See id. at 1100-03 (discussing grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), and explaining that Rule 60(b)(6) relief is granted “only where extraordinary circumstances” are present (citations and quotation marks omitted) ). Contrary to Beattie's contention, Andres v. Marshall, 867 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam), is factually distinguishable from his case.

We do not consider Beattie's contentions concerning the merits of the underlying case because “[a]n appeal from a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings up only the denial of the motion for review, not the merits of the underlying judgment.” Molloy v. Wilson, 878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th Cir. 1989).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.