Wayne Ford v. Eric Shinseki
538 F. App'x 803
9th Cir.
2013
Check Treatment
Docket

Wayne H. FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-16359.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2013. Filed Aug. 19, 2013.

538 F. App‘x 803

Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Wayne H. Ford, pro se. Jeffrey James Lodge, Assistant U.S. USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

tion and retaliatory transfer because Kemp failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. See (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules).

Because Kemp does not raise any arguments regarding the district court‘s dismissal of the remaining counts of his Sixth Amended Complaint, he waives any such challenge on appeal. See (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party‘s opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim....” (internal citation omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kemp‘s untimely motion for an extension of time to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. See (setting forth the standard of review for extension requests.)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kemp‘s motion for reconsideration because Kemp failed to establish grounds for such relief. See (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

Kemp‘s contention that the district court improperly denied his motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order requesting access to the prison law library and legal assistance is unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

MEMORANDUM**

Wayne H. Ford appeals pro se from the district court‘s entry of judgment dismissing without prejudice of his action alleging constitutional claims arising from the denial of interest on a retroactive veterans’ disability benefits award. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court‘s compliance with our mandate, , and we affirm.

In Ford‘s prior appeal, we remanded so that the district court could enter judgment of dismissal without prejudice because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Ford‘s action, which requires dismissal without prejudice. See (en banc) (Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to review administrative decisions regarding veterans’ disability benefits, including all factual, legal, and constitutional questions involving benefits laws); (dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice). Accordingly, the district court properly followed our mandate by entering judgment of dismissal without prejudice. See (a district court that has received the mandate of an appellate court cannot vary or examine that mandate for any purpose other than executing it).

AFFIRMED.

Edward Faye PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALPHERA FINANCIAL SERVICES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-17520.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2013. Filed Aug. 19, 2013.

538 F. App‘x 804

Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Edward Faye Parks, San Luis, AZ, pro se.

MEMORANDUM**

Edward Faye Parks, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court‘s order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis in his action alleging that defendants violated his rights in connection with the purchase, repossession, and sale of a vehicle. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court‘s interpretation and application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), , and for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave to proceed in forma pauperis, . We affirm.

Notes

*
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.