McDonald v. Los Angeles Office of the District Attorney - Pomona

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-342
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL SCOTT McDONALD, No. 24-342 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-04461-ODW-KES Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY - POMONA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Michael Scott McDonald appeals pro se from the district court’s order

striking post-judgment filings in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ready Transp.,

* 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). Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 403-04 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in striking McDonald’s post-

judgment filings or denying his motion for default judgment as moot because

McDonald submitted them after the district court had dismissed McDonald’s

action and closed the case. See id. at 404 (holding that district courts have the

inherent power to control their dockets, including the power to strike filings from

the docket).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-342