Roderick Himes v. CONNIE GIPSON, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODERICK HIMES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CONNIE GIPSON, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16659
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00021-DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted October 14, 2015***
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Roderick Himes, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FILED
OCT 22 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** Himes consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

action alleging denial of access to the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah
Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Himes’s motion for
relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because Himes
failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (grounds for
reconsideration under Rule 60); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403,
414-16 (2002) (discussing elements of a backward-looking access-to-courts claim);
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-53 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires
showing that the defendant’s conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal
claim).
We do not consider Himes’s challenge to the underlying order dismissing
the first amended complaint without leave to amend because Himes failed to file a
timely notice of appeal or a timely post-judgment tolling motion. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(A). We reject Himes’s contention, set forth in his submission
filed on August 28, 2015, that this result is altered by the mailbox rule. Himes’s
request for a ruling on his August 28, 2015 motion, filed on September 15, 2015, is
granted.
AFFIRMED.
14-16659 2

-- 2 of 2 --