James A. Kroll v. Mary E. Willard

Good Law
942 F.2d 792·1991 WL 165637·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 26219
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 29, 199190-35335California660 words

Opinion

Opinion

942 F.2d 792 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. James A. KROLL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mary E. WILLARD, et al., Defendant-Appellee. No. 90-35335. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 23, 1991. * Aug. 29, 1991. Before BROWNING, FARRIS and WILLIAM A. NORRIS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 James Kroll 1 appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). We have jurisdiction prusuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm. 3 We review the denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion, and we will reverse "only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion." Molloy v. Wilson, 878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th Cir.1989) ( quoting Pena v. Seguros La Comercial, S.A., 770 F.2d 811, 814 (9th Cir.1985) (court's emphasis)). We construe Kroll's motion as a Rule 60(b) motion because it was filed more than ten days after entry of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.