Sarah Nathreen Nakanwagi v. City of Flagstaff

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARAH NATHREEN NAKANWAGI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-16351
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-08015-MHB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michelle H. Burns, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 18, 2023***
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Sarah Nathreen Nakanwagi appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion in her action alleging
federal employment law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
* 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 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16351
We review for an abuse of discretion. De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc.,
206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by construing Nakanwagi’s
motion as one for relief under Rule 60(b)(3) and denying it because Nakanwagi
failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d
1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (to prevail under Rule 60(b)(3), the “moving party must
prove by clear and convincing evidence” that judgment was obtained through
fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct that was not “discoverable by due
diligence before or during the proceedings” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Even if Nakanwagi’s motion were construed as being brought under Rule
60(b)(1), (5), or (6), Nakanwagi did not demonstrate any basis for relief. See
Henson v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443-44 (9th Cir. 2019) (“A
movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must show extraordinary circumstances
justifying the reopening of a final judgment.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)); Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100-01 (9th
Cir. 2006) (discussing grounds to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(1)); SEC v.
Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2001) (discussing conditions under
which a court may modify an order under Rule 60(b)(5)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --