Gregory Downs v. California Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY DOWNS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-15669
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03057-MCE-
CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gregory Downs appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, Pagtalunan v.
FILED
APR 19 2016
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 3 --

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
Downs failed to address the district court’s dismissal for failure to comply
with a court order in his opening brief, and has therefore waived this issue on
appeal. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.
2003) (“[W]e review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a
party’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Downs’s motion for
disqualification of the magistrate judge because Downs’s disagreement with the
magistrate judge’s rulings does not provide a basis for recusal. See United States v.
Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[J]udicial rulings or information
acquired by the court in its judicial capacity will rarely support recusal.”); Pesnell
v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review
and grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(a)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Downs’s motion
for appointment of counsel because Downs failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting
forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Downs’s motion to
amend the judgment because Downs failed to establish any grounds for relief. See
14-15669 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for granting
reconsideration).
Because the district court dismissed Downs’s action for failure to comply
with court orders, we do not consider Downs’s contentions regarding the merits of
his complaint.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-15669 3

-- 3 of 3 --