Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8621260
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Pickett v. Stewart
No. 8621260 · Decided May 18, 2006
No. 8621260·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
May 18, 2006
Citation
No. 8621260
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Arizona state prisoner Richard L. Pickett appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison offi *702 ciáis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm. Because Pickett’s opening brief does not challenge the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials, he has waived the right to challenge that portion of the district court’s March 31, 2005 order. See Indep. Towers of Washington v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925 , 929 (9th Cir. 2003). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pickett’s motion to reconsider because he failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or any other basis for relief from judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 , 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993). AFFIRMUED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
Pickett appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison offi *702 ciáis in his 42 U.S.C.
Key Points
01Pickett appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison offi *702 ciáis in his 42 U.S.C.
02Because Pickett’s opening brief does not challenge the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials, he has waived the right to challenge that portion of the district court’s March 31, 2005 order.
03The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pickett’s motion to reconsider because he failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or any other basis for relief from jud
04This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.
Frequently Asked Questions
Pickett appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison offi *702 ciáis in his 42 U.S.C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Pickett v. Stewart in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on May 18, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8621260 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.