Hays v. Transportation Security Administration , 691 F. App'x 500 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NADINE HAYS, No. 15-55786
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-03198-DMG-
PJW
v.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY MEMORANDUM*
ADMINISTRATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Nadine Hays appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying her post-
judgment motions for reconsideration in her action alleging federal and state law
claims related to her arrest. 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 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 by denying Hays’ second and
third motions for reconsideration because Hays failed to establish any basis for
such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
To the extent that Hays seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying
her various discovery requests, we lack jurisdiction because Hays failed to file a
timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(A); Stephanie-
Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th
Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional
requirement.”).
We do not consider arguments or facts that were not presented to the district
court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).
Hays’ request for clarification (Docket Entry No. 16) is granted to the extent
that Hays seeks to add Kakumu as a defendant to the docket and to correct Green’s
name on the docket. All other requests set forth in the request for clarification
(Docket Entry No. 16) are denied.
2 15-55786
Hays’ motion for miscellaneous relief to file the transcript attached to the
motion as Exhibit A (Docket Entry No. 61) is granted.
Hays’ motion for miscellaneous relief regarding the identification and
authentication of defendants (Docket Entry No. 50), motion for reconsideration
(Docket Entry No. 58), and motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 76) are
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-55786