Mark Chanley v. Mike Gillis

MEMORANDUM

Mark David Chanley, a federal prisoner in Nevada, timely appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Chanley moved to disqualify the magistrate judge for bias, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a) and (b)(1). We review the denial of a recusal motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir.2010). Chanley’s allegations regarding the magistrate judge’s prior rulings in his criminal case are not such as to demonstrate the requisite bias or prejudice to warrant recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551, 553 , 114 S.Ct. 1147 , 127 L.Ed.2d 474 ; Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147-48 ; United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir.1983) (even erroneous “[a]dverse rulings do not constitute the requisite bias”).

We review de novo the district court’s application of collateral estoppel to dismiss Chanley’s section 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. See McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2004); Matthews v. Macanas, 990 F.2d 467, 468 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam)…