FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRISLEE CARDINAL HALL, No. 14-16916
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-01404-LHK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
APOLLO GROUP, INC.; THE
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Krislee Cardinal Hall appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her diversity action alleging various claims in connection with her
enrollment in higher education degree programs. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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). Accordingly, we deny Hall’s
requests for oral argument.
U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); see also
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture
arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim[.]”).
Accordingly, we do not consider whether the district court properly dismissed
Hall’s complaint.
We reject as without merit Hall’s contentions that the district court was
biased against her or engaged in judicial misconduct. See United States v.
Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that under both 28
U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 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 marks omitted)); see also United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147
(9th Cir. 2010) (“[J]udicial rulings or information acquired by the court in its
judicial capacity will rarely support recusal.”).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-16916