NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NASSIR NAZAROVICH KOURBANOV, AKA Milan Frank Fargo,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 20

- 16444

D.C. No. 1:19

- cv

- 00004

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands Ramona V. Manglona, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 14, 2021 * *

Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Nassir Nazarovich Kourbanov AKA Milan Frank Fargo appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his action seeking judicial review of
Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) decisions under the

* 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). 

# FILED

SEP 17 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 16444

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702 . We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Davidson v. Kimberly

- Clark Corp. , 889 F.3d

9 56, 963 (9th Cir. 2018) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) ) ;

Ariz

. Students’ Ass’n v. Ariz

. Bd. of Regents , 824 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2016)
(dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ) . We affirm.
The district court properly d ismissed as moot Fargo’s claim arising from
FEMA’s recoupment efforts because FEMA agreed to cease recoupment efforts

.
See Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker , 22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir. 1994) (a
case is moot when there is no longer a present controvers y as to which effective
relief can be granted)

. The district court properly dismissed Fargo’s remaining claims for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because the Stafford Act precludes judicial review of

FEMA’s discretionary actions when performing its duties under the Act

. See 42
U.S.C. § 5148 (“ The Federal Government shall not be liable for any claim based
upon the exercise or performance of or the failure to exercise or perform a
discretionary function or duty on the part of a Federal agency or an employee of
the Federal Government in carrying out the provisions of this chapter. ”); Graham

v. FEMA , 149 F.3d 997, 1005 ( 9th Cir. 1998) (Section 5148 “ pr eclude[s] judici a l
review of all disaster relief claims based upon the discretionary actions of federal
employees.” ( citation and internal quotation marks omitted))
, abrogated on other3 20

- 16444

grounds as recognized in Novak v. United States , 795 F.3d 10 12 (9th Cir . 2015).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fargo’s motion for

reconsideration because Fargo failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. , 5 F.3d 1255, 12 62

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993)
( setting fort h standard of review and discussing when reconsideration is
appropriate ).
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. W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See

United States v. Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
We reject as meritless Fargo’s contentions that he was entitled to a jury trial
and that the district court judge was biased against him.

AFFIRMED.