Narrative Opinion Summary
Terrance Kent Moord appeals the district court's denial of his requests for a hearing date and an extension of time to submit a motion for reconsideration regarding the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which claimed deprivation of personal hygiene rights. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the district court's decisions for abuse of discretion in matters of time extension, as per Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). The appeal is affirmed; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moord's request for a hearing on a motion it never received and also did not err in denying the extension for reconsideration, as Moord's declaration indicated he did not intend to contest the dismissal based on statute of limitations grounds. Other arguments presented by Moord were found unpersuasive. The ruling is not to be published or cited in future cases, per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court has the authority to review the district court's denial of requests related to the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the district court's decisions for abuse of discretion in matters of time extension, as per Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).
Criteria for Granting Extensions for Reconsideration Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court did not err in denying an extension for a reconsideration motion when the appellant did not intend to contest the dismissal based on statute of limitations grounds.
Reasoning: The district court did not err in denying the extension for reconsideration, as Moord's declaration indicated he did not intend to contest the dismissal based on statute of limitations grounds.
Denial of Hearing Requests for Unsubmitted Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a hearing request for a motion that was never received.
Reasoning: The appeal is affirmed; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moord's request for a hearing on a motion it never received.
Non-Publication and Citation of Rulings under 9th Cir. R. 36-3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling is designated as not to be published or cited in future cases in accordance with 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The ruling is not to be published or cited in future cases, per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Standard of Review for Time Extensions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's denial of a time extension request is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the district court's decisions for abuse of discretion in matters of time extension, as per Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b).