Estes

Estes v. Burrows

Good Law
172 F. App'x 161
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 17, 2006No. 05-15841California252 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*162 MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Donald Glenn Estes appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the summary judgment in favor of defendants in his civil rights action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a motion to reconsider, Kona Enter., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 , 883 (9th Cir.2000), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, First Pac. Bank v. Gilleran, 40 F.3d 1023, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.

Estes’s sole contention is that he did not receive the Rand notice the district court mailed to him. See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 961-62 (9th Cir.1998). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration on this ground because Estes conceded that he had received a Rand notice a few months earlier in another action and therefore was aware of the deadline for filing opposition to summary judgement and the possible consequences of failing to oppose. See id.

Moreover, Estes’s opposition to summary judgment does not raise a triable issue of fact that defendants acted with deliberate indifference by…

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.