Court Opinion

ID: 9964742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 18:00:55.381627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:40.953503
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 30 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ,                               No. 23-15455

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00048-AWI-GSA

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
J. OROZCO, Correctional Officer; N.
HERNANDEZ, Correctional Officer,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Rogelio May Ruiz appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d

      *
             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).
1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ruiz’s post-

judgment motion to reopen because Ruiz failed to establish any grounds for relief,

and it was filed more than a year after entry of the judgment. See id. at 1262-63

(setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1)

(explaining that a Rule 60(b) motion must be made within a reasonable time—and

for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after entry of the judgment).

      We do not consider Ruiz’s contentions concerning the merits of the

underlying case. See Henson v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 444 (9th Cir.

2019) (“[A]n appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings up for review

only the denial of that motion, . . . not the underlying judgment.”)

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                       23-15455