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.
Alfred E. CARAFFA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Alfred E. Caraffa appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Caraffa's action because defendants were either entitled to immunity or were not properly named. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-86, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (explaining that a Bivens action is only available against federal officers, not against the United States); Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining judicial immunity); Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining Eleventh Amendment immunity).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caraffa's request to recuse Judge Liburdi because Caraffa failed to file an affidavit alleging bias or establish extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (setting forth circumstances requiring recusal); United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 1980) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caraffa's motion to consolidate. See Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court has broad discretion to consolidate actions).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caraffa's motion for default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (outlining elements of default and default judgment); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review and factors for determining whether to enter default judgment).
We reject as unsupported by the record Caraffa's contentions that the district court improperly denied in forma pauperis status, failed to grant leave amend, failed to consider Caraffa's exhibits or evidence, included extraneous documents in the case file, or failed to serve documents.
Caraffa's pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
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. 20-16653
Decided: September 21, 2021
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)