
    James Fredrick MENEFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-17600.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 2, 2014.
    James Fredrick Menefíeld, lone, CA, pro se.
    David Carrasco, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Grant Lien, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner James Fredrick Menefíeld appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from a stipulated voluntary dismissal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Menefield’s motion for relief because Menefíeld failed to show that defendants had repudiated their settlement agreement. See Keeling v. Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, Local Union 162, 937 F.2d 408, 410 (9th Cir.1991) (“Repudiation of a settlement agreement that terminated litigation pending before a court constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, and it justifies vacating the court’s prior dismissal order.”); see also United Commercial Ins. Serv., Inc., 962 F.2d at 856 (“The construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contracts generally.”); Taylor v. Johnston, 15 Cal.3d 130, 123 Cal.Rptr. 641, 539 P.2d 425, 430 (1975) (discussing the requirements for establishing repudiation under California law).

We reject Menefield’s contentions concerning the Prisoners Litigation Reform Act, the district court’s purported failure to consider evidence, and its alleged rejection of his sincerely-held religious beliefs.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     