Ronald Bruce Ellis v. Circuit Court for the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah;

13-35595Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit17.04.2015

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD BRUCE ELLIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF
OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF
MULTNOMAH; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-35595
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00335-MO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Judge Mosman did not err by failing to recuse himself sua sponte because
Ellis did not establish a proper basis for a recusal motion. See Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute
FILED
APR 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d
983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“This court will not ordinarily consider
matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in
appellant’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Leer v.
Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 634 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Issues raised in a brief which are not
supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
We also do not consider any facts or documents not presented to the district
court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents
or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
Defendants’ requests for judicial notice, filed on July 21, 2014, are granted.
All other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-35595

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.