NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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