Cristobal Hernandez, Jr. v. Janice Brewer

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISTOBAL HERNANDEZ, Jr., No. 18-16113

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01945-JAT

v. MEMORANDUM ** DOUG DUCEY*, Governor of the State of Arizona, in his official capacity; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2019*** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Cristobal Hernandez, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motions for relief from the judgment in his action alleging various

* Doug Ducey is substituted for his predecessor, Janice K. Brewer, as Governor of the State of Arizona. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** 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).

federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1173 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hernandez’s post-judgment motions because Hernandez failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances necessary to obtain relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See id. (“Rule 60(b) relief should be granted sparingly [and] only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)).

To the extent Hernandez appeals the district court’s judgment entered on September 10, 2013, it was previously affirmed by this court in Hernandez v. Brewer, 658 F. App’x 837 (9th Cir. 2016) and cannot be reexamined. See S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County., 372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The law of the case doctrine . . . precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court . . . .”). To the extent Hernandez appeals post-judgment orders entered by the district court prior to May 14, 2018, this court lacks jurisdiction over such orders because any notice of appeal concerning them was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th

2 18-16113 Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

[3] 18-16113