GAYLE KERN V. SHERYL MOULTON, No. 16-15544 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 26 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GAYLE A. KERN; GAYLE A. KERN, LTD, DBA Kern and Associates, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15544 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00296-RCJ-PAL Plaintiffs-Appellees, MEMORANDUM* v. SHERYL MOULTON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2017** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Sheryl Moulton appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her motions for relief from judgment in this diversity action alleging malicious prosecution and other state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Moulton’s motions for relief from judgment filed on February 9, 2016 and February 10, 2016 because Moulton failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). We lack jurisdiction to consider Moulton’s contentions regarding the district court’s prior orders because Moulton failed to file a timely notice of appeal or timely post-judgment tolling motion after the district court entered judgment on February 10, 2015. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or order appealed from); StephanieCardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A timely notice of appeal is a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement.”). 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). Moulton’s requests for appointment of counsel are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-15544

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.