
    Jeannette MARTELLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shelley ROUILLARD, In her official capacity as Director of the California Department of Managed Health Care; Kimberly Kirchmeyer, In her official capacity as Director of the Medical Board of California, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-56185
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 25, 2017
    Jeannette Martello, Pro Se
    Christopher Benjamin Lee, California Department of Managed Health Care, Office of Enforcement, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Shelley Rouillard
    Cindy M. Lopez, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Kimberly Kirchmeyer
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Martello’s request for oral argument set forth in her opening brief is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jeannette Martello appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action challenging the constitutionality of California’s prohibition against balance billing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Martello’s action under the Younger abstention doctrine because federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings where “the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings.” ReadyLink, 754 F.3d at 758-59 (setting forth requirements for Younger abstention in civil cases).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martello’s motion for reconsideration because Martello failed to state any grounds warranting relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

Appellees’ motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 30 and 38) are granted.

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