Hall v. Myotte

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 30 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STACY G. HALL, No. 23-3896 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:16-cv-00058-DLC

v.

MEMORANDUM*

BUDDY MYOTTE; ALVIN FODE; MYRON BEESON,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 30, 2025**

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges Plaintiff-Appellant Stacy G. Hall appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motions to set aside the jury verdict and to reopen discovery in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have

*

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).

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1191–92 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hall’s post-

judgment motions because Hall failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262–63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)); Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058–59 (9th Cir. 2008) (court of appeals may affirm on any basis supported by the record).

We decline to review any issues that were not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or not raised before the district court. Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-35372