
    Gilbert E. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, as Trustee for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I, LLC, Green Point Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-AR1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR1; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-56569
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017
    
    Filed January 30, 2017
    Gilbert E. Martinez, Pro Se
    Glenn J. Plattner, Esquire, Attorney, Richard P. Steelman, Jr., Attorney, Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Wells Fargo Bank, NA, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., EMC Mortgage Corporation
    Jennifer A. Brady, Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellee National Default Servicing Corporation
    Amy Borlund, Doll Amir & Eley LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gilbert E. Martinez -appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s action because Martinez failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez’s motion to vacate the judgment because Martinez failed to establish grounds warranting relief. See Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and requirements to vacate judgment); United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion requirements).

We reject as unsupported by the record Martinez’s contentions that the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on defendants’ motion to dismiss- due to its bias and denial of Martinez’s due process rights. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (recognizing that adverse judicial rulings almost never constitute a basis for finding judicial bias).

We do not consider arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Dir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     