United States v. 2020-06-05 | 19-15721 | DEREK WATKINS V. GOGOIU | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEREK CLAUDE WATKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GOGOIU, Mesa P.D. Officer #16912; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees

No. 19-15721

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02779-JJT

MEMORANDUM
*

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).
FILED

JUN 5 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-15721
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.