Patel

facts); Stoll v. Runyon, 165 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 1999) (explaining that

equitable tolling is warranted “when extraordinary circumstances beyond the

plaintiff’s control made it impossible to file a claim on time”); Fink v. Shedler, 192

F.3d 911, 916 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing requirements for equitable tolling under

California law).

Patel’s challenge to the denial of his motion for a temporary restraining

order is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1449-

(9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that when underlying claims have been decided,

reversal of denial of preliminary injunctive relief would have no practical

consequences, and the issue is therefore moot).

We reject as without merit Patel’s contention that the district court was

biased against him.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Patel’s unopposed motion (Docket Entry No. 36) to file a document under

seal is granted. The clerk will file publicly the motion to seal (Docket Entry No.

36-1). The clerk will maintain under seal the reply to response to motion to

expedite and…