NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISTOBAL HERNANDEZ, Jr., No. 18-16113
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01945-JAT
v.
MEMORANDUM **
DOUG DUCEY*, Governor of the State of
Arizona, in his official capacity; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019***
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Cristobal Hernandez, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motions for relief from the judgment in his action alleging various
*
Doug Ducey is substituted for his predecessor, Janice K. Brewer, as
Governor of the State of Arizona. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
**
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).
federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1173 (9th
Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hernandez’s post-
judgment motions because Hernandez failed to demonstrate the extraordinary
circumstances necessary to obtain relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See id. (“Rule
60(b) relief should be granted sparingly [and] only where extraordinary
circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an
erroneous judgment.” (citation, internal quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)).
To the extent Hernandez appeals the district court’s judgment entered on
September 10, 2013, it was previously affirmed by this court in Hernandez v.
Brewer, 658 F. App’x 837 (9th Cir. 2016) and cannot be reexamined. 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 the same court . . . .”). To the extent Hernandez appeals post-judgment
orders entered by the district court prior to May 14, 2018, this court lacks
jurisdiction over such orders because any notice of appeal concerning them was
untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th
2 18-16113
Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional).
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).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-16113