NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGELIO MAY RUIZ, 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 post-
judgment 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