NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 10 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NESTOR C. DOMINGO, No. 16-16784
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05333-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General
Pacific Area United States Postal Service,
Agency,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Nestor C. Domingo appeals pro se from the district court’s order taxing costs
in his federal employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review for an abuse of discretion. Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 810 F.3d 659,
*
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).
665 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.
To the extent Domingo challenges the district court’s authority to award
costs in this case, this court previously resolved this issue in Domingo v. Brennan,
639 F. App’x 418, 420 (9th Cir. 2016), and we are bound by this determination.
See S. Or. Barter Fair v. Jackson County, 372 F.3d 1128, 1136 (9th Cir. 2004)
(“The law of the case doctrine . . . precludes a court from reexamining an issue
previously decided by . . . a higher court in the same case.”). Contrary to
Domingo’s contention, defendant’s amended bill of costs, filed after this court’s
mandate issued, was not untimely, and our mandate did not preclude the district
court from recalculating the amount of the costs award. See Stevens v. F/V Bonnie
Doon, 731 F.2d 1433, 1435 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The mandate is controlling as to all
matters within its compass, but leaves to the district court any issue not expressly
or impliedly disposed of on appeal.”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-16784