Audrey L. Kimner v. Berkeley County, Sc

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUDREY L. KIMNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BERKELEY COUNTY, SC,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-15487
D.C. No. 5:20-cv-07563-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Audrey L. Kimner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from South
Carolina state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. CollegeSource,
* 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). Kimner’s request for a
hearing, set forth in her filing at Docket Entry No. 9, is denied.
FILED
JUN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15487
Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kimner’s action because Kimner failed
to allege facts sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the district court had
personal jurisdiction over defendant Berkeley County. See id. at 1074, 1076-77
(discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction); see also
Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 291 (2014) (“[I]t is the defendant, not the plaintiff
or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kimner’s motion
for recusal because Kimner failed to demonstrate extrajudicial bias or prejudice.
See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth
standard of review and objective test to determine whether recusal is required).
We reject as unsupported by the record Kimner’s contentions that the district
court was biased against her, engaged in unlawful or unethical behavior, or erred
by failing to hold a hearing.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --