HEZEKIAH BAKER V. CONSTITUENTS SERVICE DIVISION OF STATE OF NEVADA, ET AL, No. 23-15497 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 7 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HEZEKIAH ESAU BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 23-15497 D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01332-GMN-NJK v. CONSTITUENTS SERVICE DIVISION OF MEMORANDUM* STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General and Unknown Employees Referred to in 04-22-21 Correspondence to Plaintiff Regarding; WEST STAR CREDIT UNION, in His and or Her Official Capacity; LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; LITCHFIELDCAVO.COM; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEVADA, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 18, 2023** * 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). Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Hezekiah Esau Baker appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking to reopen his case following his voluntary dismissal without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion. Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Baker’s motion to reopen his case because Baker failed to demonstrate a basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)). We do not consider Baker’s contentions concerning the merits of the underlying case. See Henson v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 444 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[A]n appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings up for review only the denial of that motion, . . . not the underlying judgment.”); Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1507 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A voluntary dismissal without prejudice is ordinarily not a final judgment from which the plaintiff may appeal.”). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 23-15497

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.