Case ID: f-appx_713/html/0665-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Delmer M. ACKELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randy M. OLSEN, In His Official Capacity, the State of Alaska; Goldrich Mining Company, FKA Squaw Gold Mining Company, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-35707
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted February 13, 2018 
    
    Filed February 23, 2018
    Delmer M. Ackels, Pro Se
    Rachel L. Witty, State of Alaska; Department of Law, Civil Division, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellee Randy M. Olsen
    Gary A. Zipkin, Esquire, Guess & Rudd P.C., Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Goldrich Mining Company
    Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Delmer M. Ackels appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from a mining dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Ackels assigns as error the district court’s orders denying his motions for default judgment, and we review for an abuse of discretion. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ackels’s motions for default judgment because several factors supported the denial of default. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72 (setting forth factors for determining whether to enter default judgment).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ackels’s motion to submit a CD-R photo disk as an exhibit to his complaint. See FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d 944, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court has broad discretion to control its docket).

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).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.