Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ahmed AMR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sharon WHITTAKER; Anthony Kelly, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Ahmed Amr appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 and other claims stemming from defendants’ alleged mishandling of court documents. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, id. at 1058-59, and we affirm.
Dismissal of Amr’s action was proper because Amr failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190, 114 S.Ct. 1439, 128 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994) (“We have been quite reluctant to infer a private right of action from a criminal prohibition alone.”); Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 297 F.3d 940, 952 (9th Cir. 2002) (absolute quasi-judicial immunity extends to “court clerks and other non-judicial officers for purely administrative acts—acts which taken out of context would appear ministerial, but when viewed in context are actually a part of the judicial function”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Amr’s motion for recusal of the district judge because Amr failed to establish any ground for recusal. See United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and circumstances requiring recusal).
We reject as without merit Amr’s contention that the district judge violated Amr’s due process rights or otherwise acted improperly.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-35429
Decided: February 11, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)