Anthony Patel v. Patrick Decarolis

Ninth Circuit

Anthony Patel v. Patrick Decarolis

693 F. App'x 562

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 3, 2017

Docket16-55462

StatusUnpublished

This text of 693 F. App'x 562 (Anthony Patel v. Patrick Decarolis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anthony Patel v. Patrick Decarolis, 693 F. App'x 562 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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. 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

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. 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 F. App'x 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-patel-v-patrick-decarolis-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack