FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HELEN E. RYAN and MYKAL S. No. 12-56908
RYAN, Special Administrator for the
Estate of John James Ryan, D.C. No. 3:12-CV-01489-MMA-
BLM
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
TIMOTHY M. HYDEN, a California
resident and as Trustee of the John and
Christy Ryan Family Trust; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 1, 2014**
Before: D.W. NELSON, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Helen E. Ryan appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing all
claims against all parties. Mykal S. Ryan, special administrator for the estate of
John James Ryan, purports to appeal from the same judgment dismissing the action
of plaintiff John James Ryan, who was deceased at the time the complaint was
filed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review a dismissal for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant order
for abuse of discretion. In re Fillbach, 223 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2000). Here,
the district court properly dismissed this case because it was filed in violation of a
vexatious litigant order entered against Mykal Ryan. The defendants and subject
matter of this case fall squarely within the terms of the order. Although Mykal S.
Ryan is not a plaintiff, the record supports the district court’s conclusion that he is
the individual litigating this action which he filed without obtaining court approval.
“Rulings on motions for recusal are reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion
standard.” United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012). The
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for recusal because
there are no facts suggesting that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be
questioned, and no showing of bias stemming from an extrajudicial source. Mayes
v. Leipziger, 729 F. 2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984).
AFFIRMED.