LANCE REBERGER V. MICHAEL KOEHN, No. 19-16143 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LANCE REBERGER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-16143 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00551-MMDCBC v. MICHAEL KOEHN, ESP General Practioner; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2021** Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoner Lance Reberger appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his post-judgment motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, * 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). Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Reberger’s motion for reconsideration because Reberger failed to establish any basis for such relief. See id. at 1262-63 (grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60(b)). We do not consider Reberger’s contentions regarding the district court’s grant of summary judgment because Reberger failed to file a timely notice of appeal or a timely post-judgment tolling motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of judgment); Fiester v. Turner, 783 F.2d 1474, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986) (under Rule 4(a)(4), an untimely post-judgment motion does not toll the time to appeal from the judgment). 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). Reberger’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the reply brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 19-16143

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.