Court Opinion

ID: 9544763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:01:28.692333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:36.599566
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 7 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HEZEKIAH ESAU BAKER,                            No.    23-15497

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
                                                2:21-cv-01332-GMN-NJK
 v.

CONSTITUENTS SERVICE DIVISION OF MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, State of Nevada
Office of the Attorney General and Unknown
Employees Referred to in 04-22-21
Correspondence to Plaintiff Regarding;
WEST STAR CREDIT UNION, in His and
or Her Official Capacity; LAS VEGAS
METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT;
LITCHFIELDCAVO.COM; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
NEVADA,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                   Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 18, 2023**

      *
             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).
Before:      SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Hezekiah Esau Baker appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking to reopen his case

following his voluntary dismissal without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial

of a Rule 60(b) motion. Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1191-92 (9th Cir.

2009). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Baker’s motion to

reopen his case because Baker failed to demonstrate a basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

1993) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).

      We do not consider Baker’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.”); Concha v.

London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1507 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A voluntary dismissal without

prejudice is ordinarily not a final judgment from which the plaintiff may appeal.”).

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   23-15497