MICHAEL LEON V. STATE OF ARIZONA, No. 13-16010 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 2 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL A. LEON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-16010 Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00556-CKJ MEMORANDUM* STATE OF ARIZONA; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Michael A. Leon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging, among other things, various federal and state law violations in connection with prior whistleblower litigation against his former employer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the * 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). district court’s denial of Leon’s motions to recuse the district court judge and for reconsideration. United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of a recusal motion); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (denial of motion for reconsideration). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Leon’s motions to recuse the district court judge and for reconsideration because Leon failed to establish a basis requiring recusal. See Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147-48 (grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263 (grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). We reject Leon’s argument concerning discovery. Leon’s request for reasonable accommodation, filed on August 31, 2013, is denied as unnecessary. M. Helen Bernstein’s motion to file an amicus brief and request to participate at oral argument, filed on December 3, 2013, are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 13-16010

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.