Case Name: Anthony A. PATEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick DECAROLIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-03
Citations: 693 F. App'x 562
Docket Number: No. 16-55462
Parties: Anthony A. PATEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick DECAROLIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
Anthony A. PATEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick DECAROLIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55462
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed July 3, 2017
Anthony A, Patel, Pro Se
Filomena E. Meyer, Hinshaw <& Culbertson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defen-⅛ dants-Appellees Patrick DeCarolis, Trope & Decarolis LLP
Ani Markarian Akopyan, Counsel, Mark Schaeffer, Nemecek & Cole, LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Kristina Royce, Buter, Buzard, Fishbein & Royce, LLP
Ryan Dallas Miller, Attorney, Sarah Lee Overton, Attorney, Cummings, McClorey, Davis, Acho & Associates, P.C., Riverside, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Randall F. Pacheco ■
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, 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
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.