Opinion
19-16852
07-29-2021
DONALD ROBIN BARREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DWIGHT NEVEN, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and PHILIP J. KOHN; et al., Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted July 19, 2021[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01492-RCJ-GWF
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Nevada state prisoner Donald Robin Barren appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from the court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Washington v. Ryan, 833 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Barren's motion for relief under Rule 60(b) because the motion was filed more than two years after the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (requiring a motion under Rule 60(b) to be made within a reasonable time-and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment).
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).
Barren's motion for miscellaneous relief (Docket Entry No. 22) is denied.
AFFIRMED. [*] 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).