Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10385205
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Villery v. Crounse
No. 10385205 · Decided April 25, 2025
No. 10385205·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
April 25, 2025
Citation
No. 10385205
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JARED M. VILLERY, No. 23-1946
D.C. No.
Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:18-cv-01623-JLT-SKO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DAVID CROUNSE; ALICIA
GUERRERO; TODD HAAK; EDWARD
GARCIA; K. HOLLAND; R. GROVES,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2025**
Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Jared M. Villery appeals pro se from the
district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). Flores v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 721, 731 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Villery’s motion for
relief from judgment because the record does not support Villery’s contention that
he did not receive the court’s orders and thus Villery failed to show he was entitled
to relief. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S.
380, 393-94 (1993) (discussing grounds for relief from judgment under Rule
60(b)). Contrary to Villery’s contention, the district court did not err in denying
the motion without addressing his request for an extension of time to file a reply
because the request was untimely under the local rules. See Christian v. Mattel,
Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The district court has considerable
latitude in managing the parties’ motion practice and enforcing local rules that
place parameters on briefing.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 23-1946
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2025 MOLLY C.
02MEMORANDUM* DAVID CROUNSE; ALICIA GUERRERO; TODD HAAK; EDWARD GARCIA; K.
03Thurston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2025** Before: GRABER, H.A.
04Villery appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion in his 42 U.S.C.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Villery v. Crounse in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on April 25, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10385205 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.