Yehoram Uziel v. GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of California

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YEHORAM UZIEL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of
California,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-56303
D.C. No.
2:21-cv-07320-MWF-AFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 30, 2023 **
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
Yehoram Uziel, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of
declaratory and injunctive relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against California
Governor Gavin Newsom. Uziel alleges that Governor Newsom violated his
* 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
JUL 5 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Fourteenth Amendment right to companionship with family through enforcement
of patient discharge provisions of California’s Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (“LPS
Act”), Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 500 et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We affirm.
We review the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. Coal. to
Def. Affirmative Action v. Brown, 674 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2012). The district
court properly dismissed the claims as barred by sovereign immunity, and as not
within the exception for enjoining state officials from the enforcement of state law,
because Governor Newsom lacks a “fairly direct” connection with enforcement of
the patient discharge provisions of the LPS Act. L.A. Cnty. Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979
F.2d 697, 704 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[A] generalized duty to enforce state law or general
supervisory power over the persons responsible for enforcing the challenged
provision will not subject an official to suit.”); see Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code
§§ 5150(a), 5152(a), 5250, 5304(b).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Uziel’s motion for
injunctive relief because Uziel failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits
or that he would suffer irreparable harm. See Winter v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (explaining requirements to obtain a preliminary
injunction).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Uziel’s motion for
reconsideration of the order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order
because Uziel did not provide new evidence or any other ground for
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
1993) (“[Absent] other, highly unusual, circumstances,” “[r]econsideration is
appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence,
(2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there
is an intervening change in controlling law.”); see also C.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-18.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to hear oral
argument on Governor Newsom’s motion to dismiss or Uziel’s motion for
reconsideration because Uziel has not shown prejudice resulting from those
decisions. See Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer Cnty. Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200
(9th Cir. 1999), as amended on denial of reh’g and reh’g en banc (Apr. 28, 1999)
(finding no abuse of discretion in refusing oral argument where the only prejudice
alleged “was the district court’s adverse ruling on the motion”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Uziel’s motions to
recuse Judge Fitzgerald. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)
(“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or
partiality motion.”); Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard
of review).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Uziel’s motion to recuse Judges Goodwin, Canby, Thomas, Silverman, and
Tallman, filed on February 24, 2022 (Docket Entry No. 12), is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --