Mariano V. Hernando v. Patricia Hamamoto;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIANO V. HERNANDO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATRICIA HAMAMOTO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-17612
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00140-SOM-
BMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Mariano V. Hernando appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in
connection with the Hawaii Department of Education’s hiring process. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
* 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).
FILED
DEC 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-17612
discretion a district court’s denial of a request for recusal, Pesnell v. Arsenault,
543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hernando’s
request for recusal because Hernando failed to allege any evidence that the
judges had engaged in improper ex parte communications or other conduct that
would call into question their impartiality. See id. at 1043-44 (the substantive
standard for evaluating a motion to recuse is “[w]hether a reasonable person
with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality
might reasonably be questioned” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
We reject Hernando’s contentions concerning the timing of the filing of
the parties’ briefs on appeal.
We do not consider issues that are not supported by argument or clearly
and distinctly raised in the opening brief. See Pierce v. Multnomah County,
Or., 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n.3 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument
in pro se brief are deemed abandoned); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977
(9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and
distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-17612
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --