Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-23
Citations: 713 F. App'x 665
Docket Number: No. 17-35707
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 665–666

Head Matter:
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),

Opinion:
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.