Andrea Claire Wood v. County of Contra Costa, a government entity

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREA CLAIRE WOOD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
TP, a minor child; LIZA LEANO, guardian
ad litem for minor child TP,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, a
government entity; KELLIE CASE, in her
official and individual capacity; EDYTH
WILLIAMS, in her official and individual
capacity; CECELIA GUTIERREZ, in her
official and individual capacity; ERICA
BAINS, in her individual capacity; STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, a government entity;
RAVINDER BAINS, in his individual
capacity; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF; DAVID O.
LIVINGSTON; ACADIA CHIDI; KIM
JOHNSON; CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES; MARK GHALY,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15085
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-07597-MMC
MEMORANDUM*
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
FEB 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-15085
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maxine M. Chesney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Andrea Claire Wood appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
her motion for relief from the judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wood’s post-
judgment Rule 60(b) motion because Wood failed to establish any grounds for
relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth factors for relief from judgment under Rule
60(b)).
We reject as meritless Wood’s contentions regarding the merits of her case
and that the district court was required to state findings of fact and conclusions of
law in its post-judgment order. See Molloy v. Wilson, 878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th Cir.
1989) (“An appeal from a denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings up only the denial
of the motion for review, not the merits of the underlying judgment.”); see also
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-15085
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(3) (“The court is not required to state findings or conclusions
when ruling on a motion under Rule 12 or 56 or, unless these rules provide
otherwise, on any other motion.”).
Defendants’ motion (Docket Entry No. 18) is granted in part. The Clerk is
directed to place under seal the exhibits attached to Wood’s opening brief (Docket
Entry No. 8). All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --