Hezekiah Esau Baker v. Constituents Service Division of State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General,…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HEZEKIAH ESAU BAKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CONSTITUENTS SERVICE DIVISION OF
STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, State of Nevada
Office of the Attorney General and Unknown
Employees Referred to in 04-22-21
Correspondence to Plaintiff Regarding;
WEST STAR CREDIT UNION, in His and
or Her Official Capacity; LAS VEGAS
METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT;
LITCHFIELDCAVO.COM; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
NEVADA,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-15497
D.C. No.
2:21-cv-01332-GMN-NJK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 18, 2023**
* 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 7 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-15497
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Hezekiah Esau Baker appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion seeking to reopen his case
following his voluntary dismissal without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial
of a Rule 60(b) motion. Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1191-92 (9th Cir.
2009). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Baker’s motion to
reopen his case because Baker failed to demonstrate a basis for relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).
We do not consider Baker’s contentions concerning the merits of the
underlying case. See Henson v. Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 444 (9th Cir.
2019) (“[A]n appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings up for review
only the denial of that motion, . . . not the underlying judgment.”); Concha v.
London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1507 (9th Cir. 1995) (“A voluntary dismissal without
prejudice is ordinarily not a final judgment from which the plaintiff may appeal.”).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --