Delmer M. Ackels v. Randy M. Olsen

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DELMER M. ACKELS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RANDY M. OLSEN, In His Official
Capacity, the State of Alaska; GOLDRICH
MINING COMPANY, FKA Squaw Gold
Mining Company,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35707
D.C. No. 4:16-cv-00026-TMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Delmer M. Ackels appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from a mining dispute. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Ackels assigns as error the district court’s
* 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).
FILED
FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-35707
orders denying his motions for default judgment, and we review for an abuse of
discretion. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ackels’s motions
for default judgment because several factors supported the denial of default. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72 (setting forth factors for determining
whether to enter default judgment).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ackels’s motion to
submit a CD-R photo disk as an exhibit to his complaint. See FTC v. Gill, 265
F.3d 944, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court has broad discretion to control its
docket).
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --