DEREK WATKINS V. GOGOIU, No. 19-15721 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 5 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEREK CLAUDE WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-15721 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02779-JJT MEMORANDUM* GOGOIU, Mesa P.D. Officer #16912; et al., Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 2, 2020** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Derek Claude Watkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging illegal search and seizure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. We lack jurisdiction to consider Watkins’s challenge to the underlying * 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). judgment because Watkins failed to file a timely notice of appeal as to the underlying judgment, and Watkins’s postjudgment motion did not toll the time to appeal from the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); 4(a)(4)(A) (listing tolling motions); United States ex rel. Hoggett v. Univ. of Phoenix, 863 F.3d 1105, 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2017) (a timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional; this court will “not strain to characterize artificially a motion as something it is not, simply to keep an appeal alive” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Watkins’s postjudgment discovery motion or in striking Watkins’s proposed amended complaint, which was filed without seeking leave and after the entry of judgment. See Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for leave to amend); Quinn v. Anvil Corp., 620 F.3d 1005, 1015 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for discovery ruling). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 19-15721

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.