Home/Ninth Circuit/Hezekiah Baker v. Constituents Service Division of State of Nevada

Hezekiah Baker v. Constituents Service Division of State of Nevada

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 7, 2023
Docket23-15497
StatusUnpublished

This text of Hezekiah Baker v. Constituents Service Division of State of Nevada (Hezekiah Baker v. Constituents Service Division of State of Nevada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hezekiah Baker v. Constituents Service Division of State of Nevada, (9th Cir. 2023).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 7 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HEZEKIAH ESAU BAKER, No. 23-15497

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01332-GMN-NJK v.

CONSTITUENTS SERVICE DIVISION OF MEMORANDUM* STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General and Unknown Employees Referred to in 04-22-21 Correspondence to Plaintiff Regarding; WEST STAR CREDIT UNION, in His and or Her Official Capacity; LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; LITCHFIELDCAVO.COM; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 18, 2023**

* 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). Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Hezekiah Esau Baker appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking to reopen his case

following his voluntary dismissal without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial

of a Rule 60(b) motion. 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 Baker’s motion to

reopen his case because Baker failed to demonstrate a basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

1993) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).

We do not consider Baker’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.”); Concha v.

London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1507 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A voluntary dismissal without

prejudice is ordinarily not a final judgment from which the plaintiff may appeal.”).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-15497

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Lemoge v. United States
587 F.3d 1188 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Melissia Henson v. Fidelity National Financial
943 F.3d 434 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)
Concha v. London
62 F.3d 1493 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hezekiah Baker v. Constituents Service Division of State of Nevada, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hezekiah-baker-v-constituents-service-division-of-state-of-nevada-ca9-2023.