Maricela Ramirez v. Melanie Parker , 698 F. App'x 358 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARICELA RAMIREZ, Nos. 16-35131
16-35367
Plaintiff-Appellant,
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01772-AC
v.
MELANIE PARKER, M.D.; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Marciela Ramirez appeals pro se from the
district court’s orders denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion and her motion for an
extension of time to file a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
858 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (motion for extension of time to file a notice of
appeal); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262
(9th Cir. 1993) (motion for reconsideration under Rule 60). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez’s Rule 60
motions for reconsideration because Ramirez failed to demonstrate any basis for
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for
reconsideration under Rule 60(b)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez’s untimely
motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal because Ramirez failed to
demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)
(district court may extend time for filing notice of appeal upon showing of good
cause or excusable neglect); Pincay, 389 F.3d at 858-60 (discussing excusable
neglect and explaining that this court must affirm unless there is a definite and firm
conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment); Ghazali v.
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[P]ro se litigants are bound by the rules of
procedure.”).
We reject as without merit Ramirez’s contention that the district court
discriminated against her on the basis of race.
2 16-35131
We do not consider Ramirez’s contentions regarding the district court’s
orders entered before January 25, 2016, because they are not within the scope of
this appeal.
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.
3 16-35131