ORDER
The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 35.
Ringgolds petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc (Docket Entry No. 26), and motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 25), are denied.
The court sua sponte withdraws the April 29, 2021 memorandum disposition. A replacement memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this order.
No further filings or petitions for rehearing will be entertained in this closed case.
MEMORANDUM **
Nina Ringgold appeals pro se from the district courts orders in her disciplinary action. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ringgolds request to file a motion in her separate civil action.
1
See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Broad deference is given to a district courts interpretation of its local rules.”); C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-3.3 (“Any attorney previously admitted to the Bar of this Court who no longer is enrolled as an active member of the Bar, Supreme Court, or other governing authority of any State ․ shall not practice before this Court.”); see also Jackson, 746 F.3d at 958 (setting forth requirements for a preliminary injunction).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the district courts orders entered on October 29, 2019 and December 11, 2019 because they are not final appealable orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (jurisdiction of appeals from “final decisions”); Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798, 109 S.Ct. 1494, 103 L.Ed.2d 879 (1989) (“For purposes of [28 U.S.C. § 1291], a final judgment is normally deemed not to have occurred until there has been a decision by the District Court that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, Ringgold did not file a notice of appeal within 30 days after entry of these orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order appealed from).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, including Ringgolds request for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in appellants opening brief are waived).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.
FOOTNOTES
1
. There were four plaintiffs in that action, including Ringgold. The proposed motion was sought to be filed on behalf of all four plaintiffs