REBERGER v. KOEHN ESP (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-20No. No. 19-16143

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for reconsideration because Reberger failed to establish valid grounds for such relief.

Lance Reberger, a Nevada state prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration in a civil rights lawsuit alleging deliberate indifference and retaliation under federal law. The appellate court reviewed the lower court's decision for abuse of discretion and found that the district court properly denied the motion because Reberger did not present any valid legal grounds supporting reconsideration.

The court declined to address Reberger's arguments concerning the original grant of summary judgment against him because he failed to file a timely notice of appeal or a timely post-judgment motion that would have extended the appeal deadline. Additionally, the court did not consider new arguments Reberger raised for the first time in his appeal brief, and it denied his request for the court to take judicial notice of additional materials presented in his reply.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a post-judgment motion for reconsideration
Whether failure to file a timely notice of appeal bars consideration of underlying judgment arguments
Whether new arguments raised for the first time on appeal may be considered

Procedural posture

A pro se appellant appealed the district court's denial of his post-judgment motion for reconsideration in a § 1983 civil rights action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Lance Reberger appeals pro se from the district courts denial of his post-judgment motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rebergers motion for reconsideration because Reberger failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60(b)).

We do not consider Rebergers contentions regarding the district courts grant of summary judgment because Reberger failed to file a timely notice of appeal or a timely post-judgment tolling motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of judgment); Fiester v. Turner, 783 F.2d 1474, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (under Rule 4(a)(4), an untimely post-judgment motion does not toll the time to appeal from the judgment).

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).

Rebergers request for judicial notice, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.