Schafler v. Newsome

Full title: Pepi SCHAFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randall R. NEWSOME, United States…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 22, 2005

136 F. App'x 104 (9th Cir. 2005)

Opinion

136 Fed.Appx. 104 (9th Cir. 2005) Pepi SCHAFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randall R. NEWSOME, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-16468. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 22, 2005

Submitted June 14, 2005. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-01354-CRB.

Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Pepi Schafler appeals pro se the district court's orders dismissing her action, denying her motion to recuse, and denying her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Schafler's action because her allegations were conclusory and based on unreasonable inferences. See Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004), cert. denied, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Mendez, --- U.S. ----, 125 S.Ct. 1828, 161 L.Ed.2d 724 (2005).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Schafler's motion for recusal, see Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.1993) (mere speculative assertions of invidious motive are insufficient to show judicial bias), or by denying her motion for reconsideration, see School Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993) ("Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law."). Schafler's contention that the district court should have allowed her leave to amend is unavailing because amendment would be futile. See Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int'l, LP, 300 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.2002).

Schafler's remaining contentions lack merit.

Judge Randall R. Newsome filed a motion for clarification as to whether the court expects him to file a brief on appeal. The Court does not expect a response.

AFFIRMED.