Opinion
20-55733
09-23-2021
AZARIAH M. ELLINGTON; MITCHELL D. ELLINGTON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARY THORNTON HOUSE, Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-07587-SVW-JDE Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Azariah M. Ellington and Mitchell D. Ellington appeal pro se from the district court's post-judgment order denying their motion to recuse the judges presiding over their action alleging violations of their civil rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to recuse District Judge Wilson, District Judge Hatter, and Magistrate Judge Early because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that a reasonable person would believe that the judges' impartiality could be questioned. See id. (setting forth standard of review and discussing standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455).
Plaintiffs' motion to recuse (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.