Andrea Wood v. County of Contra Costa

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 24, 2022
• Docket: 21-15085
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREA CLAIRE WOOD, No. 21-15085

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-07597-MMC

and MEMORANDUM* TP, a minor child; LIZA LEANO, guardian ad litem for minor child TP,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a government entity; KELLIE CASE, in her official and individual capacity; EDYTH WILLIAMS, in her official and individual capacity; CECELIA GUTIERREZ, in her official and individual capacity; ERICA BAINS, in her individual capacity; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a government entity; RAVINDER BAINS, in his individual capacity; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF; DAVID O. LIVINGSTON; ACADIA CHIDI; KIM JOHNSON; CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; MARK GHALY,

Defendants-Appellees.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Andrea Claire Wood appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

her motion for relief from the judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wood’s post-

judgment Rule 60(b) motion because Wood failed to establish any grounds for

relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth factors for relief from judgment under Rule

60(b)).

We reject as meritless Wood’s contentions regarding the merits of her case

and that the district court was required to state findings of fact and conclusions of

law in its post-judgment order. See Molloy v. Wilson, 878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th Cir.

1989) (“An appeal from a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings up only the denial

of the motion for review, not the merits of the underlying judgment.”); see also

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 21-15085 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(3) (“The court is not required to state findings or conclusions

when ruling on a motion under Rule 12 or 56 or, unless these rules provide

otherwise, on any other motion.”).

Defendants’ motion (Docket Entry No. 18) is granted in part. The Clerk is

directed to place under seal the exhibits attached to Wood’s opening brief (Docket

Entry No. 8). All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 21-15085