Patrick Alexandre Missud, I v. San Francisco Superior Court;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK ALEXANDRE MISSUD, I,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SAN FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17622
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-03117-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
AUG 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-17622 2
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’$ $tate 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.

-- 2 of 2 --