ANTHONY PATEL V. PATRICK DECAROLIS, No. 16-55462 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY A. PATEL, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-55462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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.