
    Michael A. LEON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of ARIZONA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-16010.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2015.
    
    Filed March 2, 2015.
    Michael A. Leon, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Andrew J. Petersen, Humphrey & Petersen, P.C., Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Mary Helen Bernstein, Fremont, CA, pro se.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael A. Leon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging, among other things, various federal and state law violations in connection with prior whistleblower litigation against his former employer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of Leon’s motions to recuse the district court judge and for reconsideration. United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir.2010) (denial of a recusal motion); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993) (denial of motion for reconsideration). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Leon’s motions to re-cuse the district court judge and for reconsideration because Leon failed to establish a basis requiring recusal. See Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147-48 (grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263 (grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)).

We reject Leon’s argument concerning discovery.

Leon’s request for reasonable accommodation, filed on August 31, 2013, is denied as unnecessary.

M. Helen Bernstein’s motion to file an amicus brief and request to participate at oral argument, filed on December 3, 2013, are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     