eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-06

John Reed v. Ohio Savings Bank ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUN 30 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN K. REED,                                    No. 20-55217
Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:19-cv-03019-PSG-
MRW
v.
OHIO SAVINGS BANK; et al.,                       MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before:      SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
John K. Reed appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order in
his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure
proceedings. 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
*
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).
F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Reed’s motion for
relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because Reed failed to
demonstrate any basis for such relief. See
    id. at 1263
     (setting forth grounds for
relief under Rule 60(b)); see also United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa,
    559 U.S. 260
    , 271 (2010) (Rule 60(b)(4) “applies only in the rare instance” of a certain
type of jurisdictional error or violation of due process); Latshaw v. Trainer
Wortham & Co.,
    452 F.3d 1097
    , 1102-04 (9th Cir. 2006) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief may
be granted only where extraordinary circumstances are present); Engleson v.
Burlington N. R. Co.,
    972 F.2d 1038
    , 1043-44 (9th Cir. 1992) (discussing grounds
for equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(1)).
We do not consider Reed’s contentions regarding the underlying judgment
because Reed failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to the judgment. See Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of judgment).
Because Reed’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b) was filed more than 28 days
after the entry of judgment, it did not toll the time to file a notice of appeal. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi).
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).
2                                    20-55217
Reed’s request for lis pendens is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3        20-55217