NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERT E. MARTINEZ, No. 14-56569
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00802-CAB-BGS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, as Trustee
for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I,
LLC, Green Point Mortgage Funding Trust
2006-AR1, Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates Series 2006-AR1; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Gilbert E. Martinez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims arising from foreclosure
*
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).
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034,
1040 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s action because Martinez
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez’s motion
to vacate the judgment because Martinez failed to establish grounds warranting
relief. See Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004)
(setting forth standard of review and requirements to vacate judgment); United
States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(4) motion requirements).
We reject as unsupported by the record Martinez’s contentions that the
district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on defendants’ motion to dismiss due to its
bias and denial of Martinez’s due process rights. See Liteky v. United States, 510
U.S. 540, 554 (1994) (recognizing that adverse judicial rulings almost never
constitute a basis for finding judicial bias).
2 14-56569
We do not consider arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and
argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir.
2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-56569