Earl Warner v. Matthew Cate ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             NOV 20 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    EARL WARNER,                                      No. 11-17794
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 3:09-cv-04081-JW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    James Ware, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 13, 2012 **
    Before:        CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Earl Warner, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    action alleging prison officials discriminated against him with regard to his work
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    assignment. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an
    abuse of discretion, Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 
    452 F.3d 1097
    , 1100
    (9th Cir. 2006), and we affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Warner’s motion for
    relief from judgment because Warner failed to show that the mental breakdown he
    suffered while the summary judgment motion was pending constituted a basis for
    relief from the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
    Cnty, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 
    5 F.3d 1255
    , 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds
    justifying relief).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief, arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal.
    See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    11-17794
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-17794

Judges: Canby, Trott, Fletcher

Filed Date: 11/20/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024