MARIANO HERNANDO V. PATRICIA HAMAMOTO, No. 13-17612 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 17 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIANO V. HERNANDO, Plaintiff - Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-17612 D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00140-SOMBMK v. PATRICIA HAMAMOTO; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan Oki Mollway, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted December 9, 2015** Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Mariano V. Hernando appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with the Hawaii Department of Education’s hiring process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). discretion a district court’s denial of a request for recusal, Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hernando’s request for recusal because Hernando failed to allege any evidence that the judges had engaged in improper ex parte communications or other conduct that would call into question their impartiality. See id. at 1043-44 (the substantive standard for evaluating a motion to recuse is “[w]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject Hernando’s contentions concerning the timing of the filing of the parties’ briefs on appeal. We do not consider issues that are not supported by argument or clearly and distinctly raised in the opening brief. See Pierce v. Multnomah County, Or., 76 F.3d 1032, 1037 n.3 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument in pro se brief are deemed abandoned); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”). 2 13-17612 AFFIRMED. 3 13-17612
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
