COULON v. FAIRBANK CEO (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Marilyn Coulon appeals pro se from the district court's post-judgment order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion in her action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Coulon's post-judgment Rule 60(b) motion because Coulon failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (grounds for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)); see also Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (to prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), the “moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence” that judgment was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct that was not “discoverable by due diligence before or during the proceedings” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d 1082, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (three-part test to prevail under Rule 60(b)(2)).

AFFIRMED.