Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Audrey L. KIMNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERKELEY COUNTY, SC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-15487

Decided: June 29, 2021

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Audrey L. Kimner, Pro Se Robin L. Jackson, Counsel, Senn Legal, Charleston, SC, for Defendant-Appellee


Audrey L. Kimner appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from South Carolina state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kimner's action because Kimner failed to allege facts sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the district court had personal jurisdiction over defendant Berkeley County. See id. at 1074, 1076-77 (discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction); see also Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 291, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) (“[I]t is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kimner's motion for recusal because Kimner failed to demonstrate extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and objective test to determine whether recusal is required).

We reject as unsupported by the record Kimner's contentions that the district court was biased against her, engaged in unlawful or unethical behavior, or erred by failing to hold a hearing.

All pending motions and requests are denied.


Copied to clipboard