eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-09

Alfred Caraffa v. United States ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
SEP 21 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFRED E. CARAFFA,                              No. 20-16653
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00774-MTL-
ESW
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,               MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before:      PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Alfred E. Caraffa appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971) action alleging constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
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).
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes,
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir.
2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Caraffa’s action because defendants
were either entitled to immunity or were not properly named. See FDIC v. Meyer,
    510 U.S. 471
    , 484-86 (1994) (explaining that a Bivens action is only available
against federal officers, not against the United States); Melendres v. Arpaio,
    784 F.3d 1254
    , 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s
Office is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of
Med.,
    363 F.3d 916
    , 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining judicial immunity); Porter v.
Jones,
    319 F.3d 483
    , 491 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining Eleventh Amendment
immunity).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caraffa’s request to
recuse Judge Liburdi because Caraffa failed to file an affidavit alleging bias or
establish extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (setting forth
circumstances requiring recusal); United States v. Sibla,
    624 F.2d 864
    , 869 (9th
Cir. 1980) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caraffa’s motion to
consolidate. See Pierce v. County of Orange,
    526 F.3d 1190
    , 1203 (9th Cir. 2008)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court has broad
discretion to consolidate actions).
2                                     20-16653
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caraffa’s motion for
default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (outlining elements of default and default
judgment); Eitel v. McCool,
    782 F.2d 1470
    , 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1981) (setting forth
standard of review and factors for determining whether to enter default judgment).
We reject as unsupported by the record Caraffa’s contentions that the district
court improperly denied in forma pauperis status, failed to grant leave amend,
failed to consider Caraffa’s exhibits or evidence, included extraneous documents in
the case file, or failed to serve documents.
Caraffa’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3                                   20-16653