NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 17 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

E. K. WADE,                                     No. 19-15868

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00425-WHA

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WOODY GILLILAND; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                    William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

      E. K. Wade appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order

denying relief from its June 24, 2010 pre-filing order. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Puente Ariz. v. Arpaio,

, 1103 (9th Cir. 2016) (denial of preliminary injunction); Sch. Dist.



      *
             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).
No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 

, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)

(denial of reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)). We may

affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 

,

1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

      Denial of Wade’s motion for injunctive relief from the district court’s pre-

filing order was not an abuse of discretion because Wade failed to demonstrate any

basis for such relief. See Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 

, 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must establish

that he is likely to succeed on the merits, among other requirements); Latshaw v.

Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 

, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining

requirements for Rule 60(b)(6) relief).

      We do not consider the underlying pre-filing order because the notice of

appeal is untimely as to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (setting forth

applicable 60-day time for filing notice of appeal); Stephanie-Cardona LLC v.

Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 

, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely

notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”).

      Wade’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

      AFFIRMED.




                                          2                                   19-15868