eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2017-12

Glenn Wilson v. Oregon Youth Authority , 708 F. App'x 381 ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLENN WILSON,                                   No. 17-35175
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 6:13-cv-01538-AA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OREGON YOUTH AUTHORITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Glenn Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion to set aside a settlement agreement and to vacate the order dismissing his
Title VII employment action in light of that settlement agreement. We have
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of discretion a denial
*
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).
of motion for relief from a final judgment or order. Casey v. Albertson’s Inc.,
    362 F.3d 1254
    , 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilson’s motion
because Wilson failed to establish grounds for invalidating the parties’ settlement
agreement. See Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co.,
    452 F.3d 1097
    , 1101 (9th Cir.
2006) (attorney mistakes are more appropriately addressed through malpractice
claims, and are not a basis to vacate a judgment); Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight
Lines,
    846 F.2d 47
    , 48 (9th Cir. 1988) (district court’s finding that a party
consented to a settlement and intended to be bound by it must be affirmed unless
clearly erroneous).
We do not consider facts or documents not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias,
    921 F.2d 870
    , 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
We do not consider issues or arguments 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).
Wilson’s motion to file physical exhibits (Docket Entry No. 9) and Oregon
Youth Authority’s motion to strike portion of appellant’s reply brief (Docket Entry
No. 23) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2                                    17-35175