TERRANCE WALKER V. INTELLI-HEART SERVICES, INC., ET AL, No. 22-15291 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TERRANCE WALKER, ex rel. United States, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 22-15291 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00132-MMD-CLB v. MEMORANDUM* INTELLI-HEART SERVICES, INC.; DANNY WEISBURG; VANNESSA PARSONS; DANIEL L. GERMAIN, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 26, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. * 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). Terrance Walker appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the judgment in this action.1 We review for an abuse of discretion,2 and we affirm. The district court reasonably determined that no extraordinary circumstances justified reopening the judgment. See Henson, 943 F.3d at 443–44. Even if Spirtos v. Yemenidjian, 499 P.3d 611, 614 (Nev. 2021), worked some change in Nevada’s anti-SLAPP3 jurisprudence, it was not with respect to “‘an issue dispositive to the outcome of the case’” at hand. Martinez v. Shinn, 33 F.4th 1254, 1263 (9th Cir. 2022); see Bynoe v. Baca, 966 F.3d 972, 983 (9th Cir. 2020). First, Spirtos plainly did not disturb Nevada law regarding the gist of the claim. Spirtos, 499 P.3d at 616; see also Abrams v. Sanson, 458 P.3d 1062, 1068–69 (Nev. 2020). Second, nothing in Spirtos changed the fact that certain of Walker’s allegations were irrelevant to his claims, particularly in light of the conclusions reached in the underlying judgment. See Spirtos, 499 P.3d at 616. Third, Spirtos did not change 1 To the extent that Walker attempts to appeal issues not arising from the district court’s disposition of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion, we dismiss the appeal. See Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1457–58 (9th Cir. 1993). 2 See Henson v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443 (9th Cir. 2019); United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–63 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). 3 Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 41.635–41.670. 2 (and could not have changed) this court’s interpretation or application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to anti-SLAPP motions in federal court. See CoreCivic, Inc. v. Candide Grp., LLC, 46 F.4th 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2022). Because Spirtos did not change the law governing the judgment, the district court did not need to explicitly examine the Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120, 1135–40 (9th Cir. 2009), factors in its order denying Walker’s motion. See Mitchell v. United States, 958 F.3d 775, 790–91 (9th Cir. 2020); see also Henson, 943 F.3d at 444. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in stating that it would “not entertain any further filings in this closed case.” See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). The order does not prevent future filings and was a reasonable response to Walker’s copious and burdensome motion practice, particularly when the matter was closed. See Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45–46, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892, 195 L. Ed. 2d 161 (2016). AFFIRMED. All pending motions are DENIED. 3

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.