United States v. 2021-08-04 | 20-55199 | NINA RINGGOLD V. | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: IN THE DISCIPLINARY MATTER
OF NINA RAE RINGGOLD, California
State Bar No. 133735,
______________________________
NINA RINGGOLD, California State Bar
No. 133735,
Petitioner-Appellant.
No. 20-55199
D.C. No. 2:19-ad-00196-VAP
Central District of California,
Los Angeles
ORDER
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing.
The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no
judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. See Fed. R.
App. P. 35.
Ringgold’s petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc
(Docket Entry No. 26), and motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 25), are
denied.
The court sua sponte withdraws the April 29, 2021 memorandum
disposition. A replacement memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently
with this order.
No further filings or petitions for rehearing will be entertained in this closed
case.
FILED
AUG 4 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: IN THE DISCIPLINARY MATTER
OF NINA RAE RINGGOLD, California
State Bar No. 133735,
______________________________
NINA RINGGOLD, California State Bar
No. 133735,
Petitioner-Appellant.
No. 20-55199
D.C. No. 2:19-ad-00196-VAP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Nina Ringgold appeals pro se from the district court’s orders in her
disciplinary action. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & County of
San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm in part and dismiss
* 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
AUG 4 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 2 of 4 --

2 20-55199
in part.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ringgold’s request
to file a motion in her separate civil action.1 See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212,
1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Broad deference is given to a district court’s interpretation
of its local rules.”); C.D. Cal. L.R. 83-3.3 (“Any attorney previously admitted to
the Bar of this Court who no longer is enrolled as an active member of the Bar,
Supreme Court, or other governing authority of any State . . . shall not practice
before this Court.”); see also Jackson, 746 F.3d at 958 (setting forth requirements
for a preliminary injunction).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s orders entered on
October 29, 2019 and December 11, 2019 because they are not final appealable
orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (jurisdiction of appeals from “final decisions”);
Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989) (“For purposes
of [28 U.S.C. § 1291], a final judgment is normally deemed not to have occurred
until there has been a decision by the District Court that ends the litigation on the
merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, Ringgold did not file a notice
of appeal within 30 days after entry of these orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)
1 There were four plaintiffs in that action, including Ringgold. The
proposed motion was sought to be filed on behalf of all four plaintiffs

-- 3 of 4 --

3 20-55199
(notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order appealed
from).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, including Ringgold’s request for relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Acosta-
Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by
argument in appellant’s opening brief are waived).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.

-- 4 of 4 --