Arthur Ezor v. Jackie Lacey

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
A. EDWARD EZOR, No. 21-55383
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04020-JVS-AGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JACKIE LACEY, District Attorney of the
County of Los Angeles, State of California;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
A. Edward Ezor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of his criminal prosecution. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. ReadyLink Healthcare,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014) (abstention under
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)); Engebretson v. Mahoney, 724 F.3d 1034,
1037 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissal on the basis of immunity). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ezor’s claims against defendant Judge
Veals as barred by judicial immunity. See Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 366
(9th Cir. 2004) (section 1983 “contemplates judicial immunity from suit for
injunctive relief for acts taken in a judicial capacity”).
The district court properly dismissed Ezor’s claims against defendants
Howick and Lacey for monetary relief as barred by prosecutorial immunity, and
Ezor’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief as barred by Younger v. Harris.
See ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc., 754 F.3d at 758 (setting forth requirements for
Younger abstention in civil cases); Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th
Cir. 2009) (setting forth the scope of prosecutorial immunity as to § 1983 claims).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ezor’s motions to
recuse District Judge Selna, District Judge Klausner, and Magistrate Judge
Rosenberg because Ezor failed to demonstrate that a reasonable person would
believe that the judges’ impartiality could be questioned. See United States v.
Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth standard of review
and discussing standard for recusal).
2 21-55383
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Defendant Howick and Lacey’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No.
16) is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-55383