Agustin Santos-Pineda v. Keri Axel , 621 F. App'x 407 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AGUSTIN SANTOS-PINEDA; GLORIA No. 13-56298
SANTOS,
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-06285-MMM
Petitioners - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
KERI C. AXEL, United States Deputy
District Attorney; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees,
And
JAMES TORO; et al.,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BERZON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Agustin Santos-Pineda and Gloria Santos (“Appellants”) appeal pro se from
the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part their motion for return
of property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion. United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 621 F.3d
1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying in part Appellants’
motion for return of property because Appellants were either not entitled to the
lawful possession of the property or the property was contraband. See United
States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 934 F.2d 1048, 1061 (9th Cir. 1991) (motion for
return of property “may be denied if the [party] is not entitled to lawful possession
of the seized property” or “the property is contraband”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ motion
for reconsideration because Appellants failed to demonstrate any grounds for
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and explaining
circumstances warranting reconsideration); see also Zimmerman v. City of
Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] party that fails to introduce facts
in a motion or opposition cannot introduce them later in a motion to amend by
2 13-56298
claiming that they constitute ‘newly discovered evidence’ unless they were
previously unavailable.” (citation omitted)).
We do not consider matters 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)
(per curiam).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-56298