eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2012-01

Mark Chanley v. Mike Gillis , 466 F. App'x 582 ( 2012 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                            FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK DAVID CHANLEY,                              No. 10-17078
Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02295
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MIKE GILLIS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Mark David Chanley, a federal prisoner in Nevada, timely appeals pro se
from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for
failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
*
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).
Chanley moved to disqualify the magistrate judge for bias, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 455(a) and (b)(1). We review the denial of a recusal motion for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Johnson,
    610 F.3d 1138
    , 1147 (9th Cir. 2010).
Chanley’s allegations regarding the magistrate judge’s prior rulings in his criminal
case are not such as to demonstrate the requisite bias or prejudice to warrant
recusal. See Liteky v. United States,
    510 U.S. 540
    , 551, 553;
    Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147
    –48; United States v. Nelson,
    718 F.2d 315
    , 321 (9th Cir. 1983) (even
erroneous “[a]dverse rulings do not constitute the requisite bias”).
We review de novo the district court’s application of collateral estoppel to
dismiss Chanley’s section 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. See
McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger,
    369 F.3d 1091
    , 1096 (9th Cir. 2004); Matthews v.
Macanas,
    990 F.2d 467
    , 468 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (abrogated on other
grounds as recognized by Papa v. United States,
    281 F.3d 1004
    , 1009 n.12 (9th
Cir. 2002)). In his criminal case, Chanley moved to suppress evidence on the
ground that there were misrepresentations or omissions in the affidavit in support
of the application for a search warrant, and that the warrant consequently lacked
probable cause. See
    Matthews, 990 F.2d at 468
    . The district court denied the
motion to suppress, Chanley was convicted of receipt and possession of child
pornography, and his conviction has been affirmed by this court. United States v.
2                                      10-17078
Chanley, No. 10-10423,
    2011 WL 3290388 
    (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2011). Because the
district court in the criminal case already rejected Chanley’s arguments regarding
the warrant, Chanley is collaterally estopped from re-litigating the issue here. See
Allen v. McCurry,
    449 U.S. 90
    , 91, 105 (1980);
    Matthews, 990 F.2d at 468
    .
AFFIRMED.
3                                    10-17078