Case ID: f-appx_538/html/0745-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Patrick Alexandre MISSUD, I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-17622.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
    
    Aug. 19, 2013.
    Patrick Alexandre Missud, I, San Francisco, CA, pro se.
    Michael John Von Loewenfeldt, Esquire, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Patrick Alexandre Missud, I, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that judges, courts, and state agencies violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and other laws. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s rulings regarding reconsideration, Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Missud’s motions for reconsideration because Missud failed to establish grounds for such relief. See id. at 1263 (listing factors warranting reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

Missud’s “Petition for immediate FRCP Rule 65 Injunctive Relief to Prevent Additional 18 USC § 1513(e) Retaliation Action by California’s State Bar,” filed on July 22, 2013, is denied.

Defendant California State Bar’s request for sanctions, set forth in its answering brief, is denied without prejudice to a separately filed motion for such relief. See Fed. R.App. P. 38.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.