Case ID: f-appx_652/html/0557-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Krislee Cardinal HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. APOLLO GROUP, INC.; the University of Phoenix, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16916
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 14, 2016
    
    FILED June 17, 2016
    Krislee Cardinal Hall, Pro Se.
    Zareh Agob Jaltorossian, Raymond Y. Kim, Esquire, Attorney, Felicia Y. Yu, Attorney, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Hall's requests for oral argument.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Krislee Cardinal Hall appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging various claims in connection with her enrollment in higher education degree programs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

We .do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim[.]”). Accordingly, we do not consider whether the district court properly dismissed Hall’s complaint.

We reject as without merit Hall’s contentions that the district court was biased against her or engaged in judicial misconduct. See United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that under both 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455, the substantive standard for recusal is whether “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 orpitted)); see also United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[J]udicial rulings or information acquired by the court in its judicial capacity will rarely support recu-sal.”).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.