22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T52a,MEMORANDUM Ivan Von Staich, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the voluntary dismissal of his action following a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Lehman v. United States, 154 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Von Staich’s arguments concerning the validity and repudiation of the settlement agreement and concluding that Von Staich had not demonstrated any “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief from judgment. See id. (the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rule 60(b)(6) relief after concluding there was no repudiation of the agreement); see also United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.1993) (Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used “sparingly [and] as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice”). We do not consider Von Staich’s arguments that were not raised before the district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999). Von Staich’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T561,

MEMORANDUM

Ivan Von Staich, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the voluntary dismissal of his action following a settlement agreement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Lehman v. United States, 154 F.3d 1010, 1017 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Von Staich’s arguments concerning the validity and repudiation of the settlement agreement and concluding that Von Staich had not demonstrated any “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief from judgment. See id. (the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Rule 60(b)(6) relief after concluding there was no repudiation of the agreement); see also United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.1993) (Rule 60(b)(6) is to be used “sparingly [and] as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice”).

We do not consider Von Staich’s arguments that were not raised before the district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

Von Staich’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

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