FlawCheck Citator
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JARED M. VILLERY, No. 23-1946 D.C. No.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
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.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →