# Pickett v. Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 22, 2016 · 667 F. App'x 244

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3216171

## Case

- **Full name:** Cary PICKETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS; Nevada Department of Public Safety Division of Parole and Probation, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 22, 2016
- **Citations:** 667 F. App'x 244
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Bea, Watford, Friedland
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3216171

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding plaintiff not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) even though “decision may have been driven by inept or erroneous advice or conduct of her counsel”
- discussing grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), and explaining that Rule 60(b)(6

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 22 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

CARY PICKETT, Nos. 13-17625,
14-15291
Plaintiff - Appellant,
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01695-PMP-
v. VCF

NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE
COMMISSIONERS; NEVADA MEMORANDUM*
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
DIVISION OF PAROLE AND
PROBATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Nevada state prisoner Cary Pickett appeals

pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
alleging constitutional claims arising out of parole violation hearings. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the

denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452

F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pickett’s Rule 60(b)

motion because Pickett did not demonstrate any grounds warranting such relief.

See id. at 1100-04 (discussing grounds for relief under Rule 60(b), and explaining

that Rule 60(b)(6) relief is granted “only where extraordinary circumstances” are

present (citations and quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Pickett’s

contentions, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Pickett

failed to demonstrate that his counsel’s actions amounted to virtual abandonment

entitling him to relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See id. at 1104 (finding plaintiff not

entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(6) even though “decision may have been driven

by inept or erroneous advice or conduct of her counsel”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Pickett’s motion to

file an amended complaint after the deadline set forth in the pretrial scheduling

order because Pickett failed to demonstrate good cause. See Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607-10 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth standard of

review and “good cause” requirement to modify a scheduling order).

2 13-17625
We reject as meritless Pickett’s contentions that the magistrate judge acted

improperly.

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 13-17625

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3216171. Public record. Not legal advice.