Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0717-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hector CAMARENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-56233
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 17, 2017
    Hector Camarena, Pro Se
    U.S. Attorney CV, Esquire, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hector Camarena appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from the judgment following the dismissal of his action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Camarena’s motion for relief from the judgment because Camare-na did not identify any grounds for such relief from the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth grounds for relief).

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 publi- ' cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.