NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LONNIE G. SCHMIDT; et al., No. 14-15725
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00660-LKK-
GGH
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their
Federal Tort Claim Act (“FTCA”) action relating to the enforcement of a contempt
order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Oyama
v. Univ. of Hawaii, 813 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment);
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Rhoades v. Avon Prod., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007) (motion to
dismiss). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ false
imprisonment and false arrest claims because the United States is immune from
liability. See Tekle v. United States, 511 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The
FTCA specifies that the liability of the United States is to be determined in
accordance with the law of the state where the alleged [wrong] occurred.”)
(citation and internal quotation omitted); see also Lopez v. City of Oxnard, 254
Cal. Rptr. 556, 559-60 (Ct. App. 1989) (describing law enforcement immunity
under California law).
The district court properly dismissed defendant Jerry Buchmeyer because
plaintiffs failed to file a motion for substitution as to Buchmeyer’s estate. See Fed
R. Civ. P. 25(a); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 & n.11 (1985) (if an
official in a personal-capacity action dies pending final resolution of the case,
plaintiff must pursue the action against the decedent’s estate).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’ request
to recuse the magistrate judge. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147-
48 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review for denial of a recusal motion).
2 14-15725
We do not consider any matters related to the district court’s orders granting
defendants’ motions to dismiss that were not specifically and distinctly raised and
argued in plaintiffs’ opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2
(9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as without merit plaintiffs’ contentions that the magistrate judge
and district judge did not address their claims and objections.
Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice, set forth in their opening brief, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-15725