ANITA WASHINGTON V. ABECASSIS MANAGEMENT, No. 18-56514 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANITA WASHINGTON, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-56514 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-07689-PSG-GJS v. MEMORANDUM* ABECASSIS MANAGEMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 15, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Anita Washington appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying reconsideration of the district court’s order dismissing Washington’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and equal protection violations arising out of her eviction from her apartment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * 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). 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). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Washington’s motion for reconsideration because Washington failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)). 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). AFFIRMED. 2 18-56514

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.