Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Craig ROSS; Natalie Operstein, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM **
Craig Ross and Natalie Operstein appeal pro se from the district court's order denying their motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Adams v. Cal. Dep't of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion to reopen because the instant action is duplicative of an earlier-filed action, Ross, et al. v. White, et. al., No. 2:17-cv-04149-ODW-JC. See Adams, 487 F.3d at 689 (in determining whether a later-filed action is duplicative, this court examines “whether the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion for reconsideration because appellants failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b) ); see also C.D. Cal. R. 7-18 (grounds for reconsideration under local rules); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review for compliance with local rules).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motions to disqualify Judge Wright and Judge Ogluin. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review and standard for recusal).
The district court did not err in denying appellants’ request to issue a summons. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b) (requiring that a complaint be filed before a plaintiff may request a summons).
Appellants’ requests to disqualify Judge Wright, set forth in their reply briefs, are denied.
Appellants’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 17) is granted.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-56564
Decided: October 29, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)