Billy Lyons v. Pacific County Clerk ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BILLY DEAN LYONS, No. 19-35382
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05059-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PACIFIC COUNTY CLERK; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 6, 2020**
Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Billy Dean Lyons appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging state court decisions arising out
of reassignment of his case to a different judge. We review de novo a dismissal
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2003). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lyons’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it was a “de facto
appeal” of prior state court decisions and raised claims that were “inextricably
intertwined” with those decisions. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163-65.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lyons’s motion for
recusal because Lyons presented no basis for recusal. See Glick v. Edwards, 803
F.3d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for
recusal); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (explaining that
“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality
motion”).
We reject as meritless Lyons’s contention regarding an undocketed motion
for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying his recusal motion.
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).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-35382