Peter Palmer v. County of Yavapai , 471 F. App'x 781 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 15 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PETER MICHAEL PALMER,                            No. 10-17690
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 3:10-cv-08049-JWS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    COUNTY OF YAVAPAI, a political
    subdivision of the State of Arizona; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding **
    Submitted March 6, 2012 ***
    Before:       B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    Peter Michael Palmer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable John W. Sedgwick, United States District Judge for
    the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    ***
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging constitutional violations by public officials in
    Arizona. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of
    discretion the denial of leave to amend, Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans,
    Inc., 
    656 F.3d 1034
    , 1041 (9th Cir. 2011), and the denial of a motion for
    disqualification, Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of Am., 
    902 F.2d 703
    , 714
    (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the
    complaint on the grounds of futility and for failure to comply with the local rules.
    See Cervantes, 
    656 F.3d at 1043
     (upholding denial of leave to amend where
    motion was “procedurally improper and substantively unsupported,” and noting
    that plaintiffs had failed to comply with local rules).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Palmer’s motion for
    disqualification because all of the incidents complained about in Palmer’s motion
    “occurred in the course of judicial proceedings, and neither (1) relied upon
    knowledge acquired outside such proceedings nor (2) displayed deep-seated and
    unequivocal antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v.
    United States, 
    510 U.S. 540
    , 556 (1994).
    Although Palmer’s notice of appeal indicated that he was also appealing the
    denial of his motion for reconsideration and the entry of summary judgment,
    2                                   10-17690
    Palmer did not brief these issues on appeal and they are accordingly deemed
    waived. See Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 
    520 F.3d 1024
    , 1033 (9th
    Cir. 2008).
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                     10-17690
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-17690

Citation Numbers: 471 F. App'x 781

Judges: Fletcher, Reinhardt, Tashima

Filed Date: 3/15/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024