Hector Camarena v. Customs and Border Protection
Hector CAMARENA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- William C. Canby, Jr. (author), James S. Hawkins, Alex Kozinski
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HECTOR CAMARENA, No. 16-56233 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01152-LAB-DHB v. MEMORANDUM* CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 11, 2017** Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Hector Camarena appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for relief from the judgment following the dismissal of his action without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d * 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). 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Camarena’s motion for relief from the judgment because Camarena did not identify any grounds for such relief from the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth grounds for relief).
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 16-56233