Doug Kisaka, a California Resident v. University of Southern California

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUG KISAKA, a California Resident,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-55945
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-04757-CJC-GJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2024**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Doug Kisaka appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
second post-judgment motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(1) in his action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J,
* 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
JAN 24 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-55945
Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kisaka’s motion for
relief from judgment because Kisaka failed to establish any basis for such relief.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) (the court may relieve a party from a final judgment or
order for mistake); United States v. Schimmels (In re Schimmels), 127 F.3d 875,
884 (9th Cir. 1997) (“An involuntary dismissal generally acts as a judgment on the
merits for the purposes of res judicata, regardless of whether the dismissal results
from procedural error or from the court’s considered examination of the plaintiff’s
substantive claims.”). Contrary to Kisaka’s contention, this court did not
previously determine that the dismissal of Kisaka’s first action was not a final
judgment on the merits.
We do not consider matters not supported by argument 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).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --