Richard W. Lewis v. David Antonuccio

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD W. LEWIS,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID ANTONUCCIO,
Defendant,
LOUIS MORTILLARO; et al.,
Defendants,
and
LINDA DUFF; TYRONE DUFF,
Defendants - Appellants.
No. 13-16181
D.C. No. 3:99-cv-00386-LRH-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
MAY 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted April 22, 2015 **
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Linda and Tyrone Duff appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment
imposing monetary sanctions against them under its inherent power. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In prior Appeal No. 08-17314, this court rejected the Duffs’ contentions that
the district court lacked jurisdiction over the underlying action and to sanction
them. We do not revisit those arguments here. See Leslie Salt Co. v. United
States, 55 F.3d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) (under the law of the case doctrine, one
panel of an appellate court will not reconsider matters resolved in a prior appeal
before another panel in the same case).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal or in the reply brief, including the Duffs’ request that Lewis or his counsel
be sanctioned. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per
curiam).
The Duffs’ request of February 14, 2014, that appellee’s answering brief be
rejected for failure to comply with the court’s January 22, 2014 order, is denied.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
13-16181 2

-- 2 of 3 --

The Duffs’ request for a decision on their appeal is granted.
AFFIRMED.
13-16181 3

-- 3 of 3 --