Azariah M. Ellington; Mitchell D. Ellington v. MARY THORNTON HOUSE, Judge;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AZARIAH M. ELLINGTON; MITCHELL
D. ELLINGTON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MARY THORNTON HOUSE, Judge; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55733
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-07587-SVW-JDE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021 **
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Azariah M. Ellington and Mitchell D. Ellington appeal pro se from the
district court’s post-judgment order denying their motion to recuse the judges
presiding over their action alleging violations of their civil rights. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. United
* 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).
FILED
SEP 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-55733
States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to
recuse District Judge Wilson, District Judge Hatter, and Magistrate Judge Early
because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that a reasonable person would believe that
the judges’ impartiality could be questioned. See id. (setting forth standard of
review and discussing standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455).
Plaintiffs’ motion to recuse (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --