Shong-Ching Tong v. Paul Turner, Aka, Paul Arthur Turner Coleman A. Swart Philip M. Saeta Daniel P. Potter State California Los Angeles County

103 F.3d 141 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Shong-Ching TONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul TURNER, aka, Paul Arthur Turner; Coleman A. Swart; Philip M. Saeta; Daniel P. Potter; State California; Los Angeles County, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-55591. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 2, 1996. * Decided Dec. 06, 1996. Before: SNEED, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Shong-Ching Tong appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing Tong's civil rights action against: (1) Justice Paul Turner of the California Court of Appeal; (2) Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Coleman A. Swart; (3) Daniel P. Potter, Chief Deputy of the Clerk's Office of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District; (4) Philip M. Saeta, a retired state court judge; (5) the State of California; and (6) the County of Los Angeles. 3 We reject Tong's assertion that the district court improperly denied Tong's motions to disqualify…