Terry Lee Barker v. Douglas M. Bray Multnomah County State of Oregon Michael D. Shrunk Theodore R. Kulongoski

67 F.3d 305 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Terry Lee BARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas M. BRAY; Multnomah County; State of Oregon; Michael D. Shrunk; Theodore R. Kulongoski, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-35822. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 16, 1995. * Decided Aug. 23, 1995. Before: ALARCON, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Terry Lee Barker, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in Barker's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when defendants conspired to deny him access to his grand jury records at the Multnomah County courthouse. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion, and we will reverse " 'only upon a…