WATKINS v. GOGOIU 16912 (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Derek Claude Watkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging illegal search and seizure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Watkins’s challenge to the underlying judgment because Watkins failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to the underlying judgment, and Watkins’s postjudgment motion did not toll the time to appeal from the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); 4(a)(4)(A) (listing tolling motions); United States ex rel. Hoggett v. Univ. of Phoenix, 863 F.3d 1105, 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2017) (a timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional; this court will “not strain to characterize artificially a motion as something it is not, simply to keep an appeal alive” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Watkins’s postjudgment discovery motion or in striking Watkins’s proposed amended complaint, which was filed without seeking leave and after the entry of judgment. See Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for leave to amend); Quinn v. Anvil Corp., 620 F.3d 1005, 1015 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for discovery ruling).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.