ARTHUR EZOR V. JIM MCDONNELL, No. 21-55117 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT A. EDWARD EZOR, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-55117 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:19-cv-08851-JVS-AGR MEMORANDUM* JIM McDONNELL; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and JAMES V. SELNA; ALICIA G. ROSENBERG, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2022** Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. A. Edward Ezor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Engebretson v. Mahoney, 724 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissal on the basis of immunity); Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal on the basis of Rooker-Feldman). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ezor’s claims contesting the validity of the probate case judgment and writ of execution because they are a “forbidden de facto appeal” of state court proceedings and raise issues that are “inextricably intertwined” with those proceedings. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 779 (9th Cir. 2012) (claims are “inextricably intertwined” for purposes of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine where “the relief requested in the federal action would effectively reverse the state court decision or void its ruling” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Ezor’s contention, the extrinsic fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable. Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004). The district court properly dismissed on the basis of absolute immunity Ezor’s claims contesting the implementation of the writ of execution and alleging that the property sale was conducted in an unlawful manner. See Engebretson, 724 F.3d at 1039 (“[O]fficials charged with executing facially valid court orders enjoy 2 21-55117 absolute immunity from § 1983 liability for conduct prescribed by those orders.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ezor’s motion to recuse District Judge Selna and Magistrate Judge Rosenberg because Ezor failed to demonstrate that a reasonable person would believe that the judges’ impartiality could be questioned. See United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth standard of review and discussing standard for recusal). We reject as meritless Ezor’s contention that the district court erred in denying as moot his motion to disqualify defendant Page’s counsel. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 21-55117
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.
