Francisco Gonzalez v. Joseph Arpaio ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO J. GONZALEZ, No. 18-16801
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04173-ROS-ESW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Former Maricopa
County Sheriff; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Former pretrial detainee Francisco J. Gonzalez appeals pro se from the
district court’s August 8, 2018 and September 5, 2018 orders denying
reconsideration of the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging constitutional violations arising out of his detention. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 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 Gonzalez’s motions
for reconsideration because Gonzalez failed to establish any basis for such relief.
See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) and 60(b)); see also Maxwell v. County of San Diego, 708 F.3d 1075, 1097
(9th Cir. 2013) (“[T]here is no respondeat superior liability under § 1983.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-16801