Caleb Avery T'bear v. Barry Forman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CALEB AVERY T'BEAR,
Plaintiff-counter-
defendant-Appellant,
v.
BARRY FORMAN,
Defendant-counter-claimant-
Appellee.
No. 21-16807
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00796-JSC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jacqueline Scott Corley, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 26, 2023***
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Caleb Avery t’Bear appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for post-judgment relief in this diversity action concerning t’Bear’s default
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 5 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-16807
on promissory notes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for an abuse of discretion. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir.
2012) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); United
States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc., 862 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 2017) (Fed. R. Civ.
P. 60(d)(3)). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying t’Bear’s post-
judgment motion because t’Bear failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See
United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 443-45 (9th Cir. 2011) (a party
must establish fraud on the court by clear and convincing evidence); Latshaw v.
Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief
may be granted “only where extraordinary circumstances” are present (citations
and quotation marks omitted)); Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 (9th Cir.
1987) (“A judge may invoke Rule 60(a) in order to make a judgment reflect the
actual intentions of the court, plus the necessary implications.”); see also Pettibone
v. Cupp, 666 F.2d 333, 335 (9th Cir. 1981) (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) expressly
requires filing of separate motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-16807
t’Bear’s request that the Circuit Executive recuse herself is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --