N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. AKR AM YASSIN, AKA Akra m Sobhie y a Ya ssin, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-56688

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-04251-R -VB K M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 22, 2015 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, B YB EE a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . Akram Ya ssin a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde rs de ny ing his m otion to vac ate sum

m ary judgm e nt in the gove rnm e nt’ s a c tion to re v oke his Unite d State s c itiz e nship unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1451(a), and gra nting thegove rnm e nt’ s 

# F IL ED APR 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).m otion to enforc e the judgm e nt. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291.

W e re vie wfor an a

buse of disc re tion. C

ase y v . Albe r tson’s Inc . , 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th C ir. 2004). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Ya ssin’ s m otion to va c ate sum

m ary judgm e nt

and gra nting thegove rnm e nt’ s m otion to enforc e the judgm e nt, be c a

use Ya ssin fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t the judgm e nt wa s obta ine d through fra

ud, a n d did not e xpla in why

he c ould not ha

ve disc ove re d this a lle ge d fraud prior to the

judgm e nt. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 60(b)(3); C ase y , 362 F.3d a

t 1260 (to pre va il on a

R ule 60(b)(3) m otion them oving pa rty m ust prove tha

t the judgm e nt wa s obta ine d through fra ud, a nd tha t the fra u d wa s not disc ove ra

ble by due dilige nc e be fore or during proc e e dings); se e also C al. De p’t. of Soc ial Se rv ic e

s v . Le av itt , 523 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th C ir. 2008) (re vie wing for a n a buse of disc re tion thede nia l of a

m otion to enforc e a

judgm e nt). W e re je c t Ya ssin’ s c o nte ntion tha t the distric t c o urt e rre d in de ny ing his m otion for a

ppointm e nt of c ounse l. W e a lso re

je c t Ya ssin’ s c onte ntions tha t due to the e x iste nc e of a n a l le ge dly ide n tic a l prior la

wsuit thedistric t c ourt la c ke d jurisdic tion ove r the c urre nt la wsuit and he ha s be e n subje c te d to doubleje opa rdy , tha t the distric t c o urt im

p rope rly

1 3 - 5 6 6 8 8 2de nie d him

disc ove ry , a

nd tha t the distric t c ourt im

prope rly re fuse d to fileYa ssin’ s le tte r c onc e rning his inquirie s re ga rding his prison m

a il. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Ya ssin’ s a ppe a l of the distric t c ourt’ s 2012 sum m ary judgm e nt be c a

u se Ya ssin fa ile d to filea tim e l y Notic e of Appe a l from e ntry of judgm e nt or a tim e ly

tolling mo t ion. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. § 4(a)(1)(B )(i), (a )(4)(A)(vi). Ya ssin’ s re que st for a

ppointm e nt of c ounse l in c onne c tion with this a ppe a l, se t forth in his ope

ning brie f, is de nie d . AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 6 6 8 8 3