Opinion
No. 18-16113
07-17-2019
CRISTOBAL HERNANDEZ, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOUG DUCEY, Governor of the State of Arizona, in his official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01945-JAT MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Cristobal Hernandez, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motions for relief from the judgment in his action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Navajo Nation v. Dep't of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1173 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hernandez's post-judgment motions because Hernandez failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances necessary to obtain relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See id. ("Rule 60(b) relief should be granted sparingly [and] only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment." (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)).
To the extent Hernandez appeals the district court's judgment entered on September 10, 2013, it was previously affirmed by this court in Hernandez v. Brewer, 658 F. App'x 837 (9th Cir. 2016) and cannot be reexamined. See S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County., 372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) ("The law of the case doctrine . . . precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court . . . ."). To the extent Hernandez appeals post-judgment orders entered by the district court prior to May 14, 2018, this court lacks jurisdiction over such orders because any notice of appeal concerning them was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional).
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).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.