Anthony Patel v. Patrick Decarolis , 693 F. App'x 562 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY A. PATEL, No. 16-55462
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-07372-GW-SS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PATRICK DeCAROLIS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Anthony A. Patel, a former attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
order denying his motion for reconsideration in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging federal and state law claims arising out of defendants’ conduct in his state
marital dissolution proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
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).
We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Patel’s motion for
reconsideration of its original dismissal orders because Patel failed to demonstrate
any basis for relief. See id. at 1263 (setting forth grounds for relief from judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Patel’s ex parte
application for leave to file a late reply because Patel failed to establish excusable
neglect. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-61 (9th Cir.
2010) (setting forth standard of review and factors for determining whether neglect
is excusable).
We reject as meritless Patel’s contentions regarding judicial bias.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-55462