BARREN v. Philip J. Kohn; et al., Defendants. (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Donald Robin Barren appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from the court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Washington v. Ryan, 833 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Barren's motion for relief under Rule 60(b) because the motion was filed more than two years after the entry of judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (requiring a motion under Rule 60(b) to be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Barren's motion for miscellaneous relief (Docket Entry No. 22) is denied.

AFFIRMED.