SAYED RAHIMI V. SFMTA, No. 18-15002 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAYED BASHIR RAHIMI, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 18-15002 18-15107 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02576-JST v. SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Sayed Bashir Rahimi appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his motion for relief from the judgment and his motion for reconsideration in his action alleging violations of the Americans with * 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). Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. We lack jurisdiction to consider Rahimi’s contentions regarding the district court’s summary judgment order because Rahimi failed to file a timely notice of appeal after entry of judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); 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.”). Because Rahimi’s motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) was filed more than 28 days after the entry of judgment, it did not toll the time to file his notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). In his opening brief, Rahimi fails to challenge the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 motions and has therefore waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant . . . .”). AFFIRMED. 2 18-15002

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.