Pickett v. Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners

MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Nevada state prisoner Cary Pickett appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising out of parole violation hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. 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 Pickett’s Rule 60(b) motion because Pickett did not demonstrate any grounds warranting such relief. See id. at 1100-04 (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 Pickett’s contentions, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Pickett failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s actions amounted to virtual abandonment entitling him to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See id. at 1104 (finding plaintiff not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) even though “decision may have been driven by inept or…