Nesbitt

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Hayden Nesbitt, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to *225 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion, Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

We are not persuaded that Nesbitt’s May 17, 2006 filing should be treated as a notice of appeal because the document did not indicate an intent to appeal and it was not served on the appellees. Cf. Rabin v. Cohen, 570 F.2d 864, 866 (9th Cir. 1978) (explaining that a document not denominated as a notice of appeal will be treated as such if it indicates an intent to appeal, is served on other parties, and is filed within the time specified by Fed. R.App. P. 4).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Nesbitt’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) because Nesbitt failed to present clear and convincing evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3); Casey, 362 F.3d at 1260 (explaining the…