NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CONSTANTINO BASILE, No. 21-56266
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-08604-CJC-ADS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THE LOS ANGELES FILM SCHOOL,
LLC, DBA The Los Angeles Film School; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
U.S. DISTRICT COURT-CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN
DIVISION; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Constantino Basile appeals pro se from the district court’s post-judgment
orders striking his motion for recusal and denying his motions for reconsideration.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion. Preminger v. Peake, 552 F.3d 757, 769 n.11 (9th Cir. 2008) (district
court’s management off its own docket); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or.
v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for
reconsideration). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Basile’s motion for
disqualification because the motion was duplicative and failed to establish
extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (setting forth circumstances
requiring disqualification); United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453-54
(9th Cir. 1997) (under § 455, the substantive standard for recusal is whether “a
reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s
impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (citation and internal quotation mark
omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Basile’s motions for
reconsideration because Basile set forth no valid grounds for reconsideration. See
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth grounds for
reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60).
Basile’s motions to transmit exhibits (Docket Entry Nos. 3 & 4) are denied.
2 21-56266
Defendant City of Beverly Hills’s request for an order to show cause why
sanctions should not be imposed, as set forth in its answering brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-56266