Summary
affirming district court's dismissal of complaint seeking to vacate an alleged fraudulent state court judgment under Civil Rule 60(b)
Summary of this case from Reyes v. Kutnerian (In re Reyes)Opinion
No. 08-35432.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed June 21, 2010.
Lee A. Holder, Vancouver, WA, pro se.
Michael C. Simon, Vancouver, WA, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05278-RJB.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Lee A. Holder appeals pro se from the district court's judgment sua sponte dismissing his action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from an allegedly fraudulent state court judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Nuclear Info. Res. Serv. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp. Research Special Programs Admin., 457 F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Holder's complaint sua sponte because Rule 60(b) does not provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over a claim for relief from a state court judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (providing narrow grounds for relief from a federal court order or judgment, including through an independent action brought under Rule 60(d)); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (authorizing sua sponte dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Holder's motion for reconsideration of dismissal because Holder did not identify any applicable basis for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist No. U, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (reviewing for abuse of discretion district court's denial of motion to reconsider and stating that reconsideration is only warranted based on newly discovered evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or intervening change in controlling law).
Holder's remaining contentions are un-persuasive.