Jaffe v. Yaffe , 385 F. App'x 668 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT J. JAFFE, No. 08-55013
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-08094-DDP-JTL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
DAVID P. YAFFE, The Honorable, in his
Judicial and individual capacities; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Robert J. Jaffe appeals pro se from the district court’s order rejecting Jaffe’s
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
08-55013
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision
regarding the management of its case. Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe,
141 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Jaffe’s Rule 60(b)
motion. The rejection was consistent with this court’s mandate upon summarily
affirming the district court’s order dismissing Jaffe’s suit for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Palomo v. Baba, 497 F.2d
959, 960 (9th Cir. 1974) (per curiam) (recognizing that any orders by a district
court following issuance of the mandate must be consistent “as to all matters
encompassed by the mandate”).
We decline to address Jaffe’s contentions regarding the underlying dismissal
of his case.
AFFIRMED.
08-55013