Scott Mickelsen v. Stephen Poulter , 693 F. App'x 709 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT LEE MICKELSEN, No. 16-35686
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00385-CWD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STEPHEN POULTER, Sgt., IFPD; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Candy W. Dale, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 11, 2017***
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Scott Lee Mickelsen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion for reconsideration of the judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mickelsen’s motion
for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) because
Mickelsen failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (grounds for
reconsideration under Rule 60(b)); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639,
642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the five factors for determining whether to
dismiss for failure to prosecute).
We reject as meritless Mickelsen’s contention that the magistrate judge erred
in not examining the police department video.
Mickelsen’s request for the appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening
brief, is denied.
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).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-35686