Case Name: Patrick Alexandre MISSUD, I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-19
Citations: 538 F. App'x 745
Docket Number: No. 12-17622
Parties: Patrick Alexandre MISSUD, I, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 745–746

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.