Anne Block v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANNE BLOCK, Esquire, an individual, No. 21-35922
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02018-RSM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Anne Block appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6) to vacate the judgment and all
prior orders in two separate district court actions. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Latshaw v. Trainer
*
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).
Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly denied Block’s motion to vacate because Block
failed to demonstrate grounds for such relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)
(providing in relevant part that a court may grant relief from a final judgment or
order if “it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated”);
Kemp v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1856, 1861 (2022) (noting that relief under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) is only available when Rules 60(b)(1) through (b)(5) are
inapplicable and even then “extraordinary circumstances must justify reopening”
(citation omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Block’s request for
disqualification because Block failed to establish that Judge Martinez engaged in
an improper ex parte communication or other conduct that would call into question
his impartiality. See Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that the substantive standard for
evaluating a motion to recuse is “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of
all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be
questioned” (citation, internal quotation marks, and alteration omitted)), abrogated
on other grounds by Simmons v. Himmelreich, 578 U.S. 621 (2016).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-35922