Peter Palmer v. County of Yavapai

Good Law
471 F. App'x 781
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 15, 201210-17690California287 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Peter Michael Palmer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations by public officials in Arizona. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend, Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.2011), and the denial of a motion for disqualification, Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of Am., 902 F.2d 703, 714 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint on the grounds of futility and for failure to comply with the local rules. See Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1043 (upholding denial of leave to amend where motion was “procedurally improper and substantively unsupported,” and noting that plaintiffs had failed to comply with local rules).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Palmer’s motion for disqualification because all of the incidents complained about in Palmer’s motion “occurred in the course of judicial proceedings, and neither (1) relied upon knowledge acquired outside such proceedings nor (2) displayed deep-seated…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.