Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8641658
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Barnett v. Bashas Inc.
No. 8641658 · Decided June 14, 2007
No. 8641658·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 14, 2007
Citation
No. 8641658
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Wyvonna M. Barnett appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider the judgment in her action alleging medical negligence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60 motion, see School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 , 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm. Because Barnett failed to establish: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) satisfaction, release or discharge of the judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief, the district court properly denied Barnett’s motion for reconsideration. See id. at 1263. Barnett’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. Barnett’s request for review of appeal or transfer to the Supreme Court is denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
Barnett appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider the judgment in her action alleging medical negligence.
Key Points
01Barnett appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider the judgment in her action alleging medical negligence.
02We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P.
03ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 , 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.
04Because Barnett failed to establish: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) satisfaction, release or discharge of
Frequently Asked Questions
Barnett appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motion to reconsider the judgment in her action alleging medical negligence.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Barnett v. Bashas Inc. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 14, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8641658 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.