Newlin v. Newlin

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 30 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES NEWLIN, No. 25-2178

D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00150-DCN Plaintiff - Appellant, v.

MEMORANDUM* MARIA LYNNE NEWLIN; KAYLA ELLIS; RYAN WILLIAM KINNEY; KATHLEEN ELENA CENTERS; KARLENE BEHRINGER; ANDREA POWERS; PRAXIS HEALTH; LAKESIDE PEDIATRIC & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE, PLLC,

Defendants - Appellees, and IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, Honorable ROSS D.

PITTMAN, JULIE L. DOTY, MARTHA TERESA ROLETTO, ALEX SEMANKO POORMAN,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 29, 2026**

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

James Newlin appeals pro se the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from judgment in his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Navajo Nation v. Dep’t of the Interior, 876 F.3d 1144, 1173 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Newlin’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion because Newlin failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See id. (explaining that “Rule 60(b) relief should be granted sparingly . . . and only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment” (emphasis omitted) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.