Gabor

MEMORANDUM **

John and Kay Gabor appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their action alleging various state and federal claims in connection with their arrest and prosecution for violating city ordinances regulating the breeding of animals and related activities without permits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir.1987). We review the denial of a recusal motion for an abuse of discretion. U.S. v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir.1986).

The Gabors contend that the judge abused his discretion by failing to recuse himself after the Gabors named him as a defendant in then amended complaint. We disagree. See Ronwin v. State Bar of Arizona, 686 F.2d 692, 701 (9th Cir.1981), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U.S. 558 , 104 S.Ct. 1989 , 80 L.Ed.2d 590 (1984) (“[A] judge is not disqualified merely because a litigant sues or threatens to sue him.... Such an easy method for obtaining disqualification should not be encouraged…