NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR EDWARD EZOR, No. 20-55706
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-09804-JVS-AGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MAUREEN DUFFY-LEWIS; DOES, 1
through 10, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Arthur Edward Ezor appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the judge presiding over his California state
court action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ezor’s action on the basis of Eleventh
Amendment and judicial immunity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12
(1991) (discussing judicial immunity and its limited exceptions); Ass’n des
Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937, 943 (9th Cir.
2013) (discussing Eleventh Amendment immunity).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ezor’s complaint
without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Chappel
v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard
of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when
amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ezor’s motion to
recuse District Judge Selna and Magistrate Judge Rosenberg because Ezor failed to
demonstrate that a reasonable person would believe that either judges’ impartiality
could be questioned. See United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453-54 (9th
Cir. 1997) (setting forth standard of review and discussing standard for recusal
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455).
2 20-55706
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-55706