Craig Ross; Natalie Operstein v. the Board of Trustees of California State University

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRAIG ROSS; NATALIE OPERSTEIN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-56564
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-03778-ODW-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
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.
* 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).
FILED
OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-56564
Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-56564
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.

-- 3 of 3 --