Patsy N. Sakuma, an individual v. Association of Apartment Owners of the Tropics at Waikele, an incorporated…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATSY N. SAKUMA, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT
OWNERS OF THE TROPICS AT
WAIKELE, an incorporated association, by
its board of directors; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16929
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00274-DKW-
KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2023**
Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Patsy N. Sakuma appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
post-judgment motion for relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)
and 60(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
* 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
DEC 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16929
abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sakuma’s motion
for relief from judgment because Sakuma failed to establish any basis for such
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, internal
quotation marks, and alteration omitted)); id. at 444-446 (discussing the factors for
determining whether a change in law qualifies for relief under Rule 60(b)(6));
Engleson v. Burlington N. R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043-44 (9th Cir. 1992)
(discussing grounds for equitable relief under Rule 60(b)(1)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
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).
Sakuma’s motion to supplement the record (Docket Entry No. 23) is denied.
Sakuma’s motions at Docket Entries Nos. 24 and 27 are granted to the extent
she seeks to file the reply briefs submitted on July 10, 2023. The Clerk will file the
reply briefs at Docket Entry Nos. 25 and 26.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --