ROGELIO RUIZ V. J. OROZCO, ET AL, No. 23-15455 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 30 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-15455 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00048-AWI-GSA v. MEMORANDUM* J. OROZCO, Correctional Officer; N. HERNANDEZ, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2024** Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Rogelio May Ruiz appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to reopen his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. 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 * 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). 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ruiz’s postjudgment motion to reopen because Ruiz failed to establish any grounds for relief, and it was filed more than a year after entry of the judgment. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (explaining that a Rule 60(b) motion must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after entry of the judgment). We do not consider Ruiz’s contentions concerning the merits of the underlying case. See Henson v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 444 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[A]n appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings up for review only the denial of that motion, . . . not the underlying judgment.”) All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 23-15455

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.