Richard Caldarone v. Joe Otting , 616 F. App'x 368 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 05 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD W. CALDARONE, No. 14-17072
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00516-DKW-
BMK
v.
JOE OTTING; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Richard W. Caldarone appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging fraud and other claims. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Caldarone’s action because Caldarone
failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. See
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (party
asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving federal jurisdiction); In re
Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Diversity
jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties—each defendant must
be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.”). Moreover, even assuming
that Fannie Mae is a federal government actor for purposes of this action,
Caldarone did not state a Fifth Amendment claim against Fannie Mae.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Caldarone’s
motions for recusal because no facts support a conclusion that Judge Watson’s and
Judge Kurren’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned. See United States v.
Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and
discussing grounds for recusal).
We do not consider issues or arguments 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) (per curiam).
All pending motions are denied.
2 14-17072
AFFIRMED.
3 14-17072