Guillermo Vera v. Connie Gipson , 692 F. App'x 397 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO VERA, No. 16-16420
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CONNIE GIPSON, Warden,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Vera, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order denying his motion for relief from judgment following the dismissal
of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Casey
*
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).
v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vera’s motion
because Vera did not identify any grounds for relief from the judgment. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b); United Nat. 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 16-16420