Ralph W. Huyck v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RALPH W. HUYCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-36093
D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00035-RRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Ralph W. Huyck appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment order
denying his motion for reconsideration in his action seeking to enjoin the
collection by levy of taxes, penalties and interest for the tax years 2002 and 2004
through 2006. 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
APR 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-36093
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 Huyck’s motion for
reconsideration because Huyck failed to establish any basis for such relief. See
D. Alaska L. Civ. R. 7.3(h) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under local
rules); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and
60(b)).
We do not consider Huyck’s contention regarding the district court’s grant
of summary judgment because it is outside the scope of this appeal.
We reject as unsupported by the record Huyck’s contention that the district
court was biased against him.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --