Case ID: f-appx_616/html/0368-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard W. CALDARONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe OTTING; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-17072.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 5, 2015.
    Richard W. Caldarone, Kailua-Kona, HI, pro se.
    Thao Tu Tran, Esquire, Kobayashi Sugi-ta & Goda, J. Blaine Rogers, Esquire, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Steven Idemoto, RCO Hawaii LLLC, Honolulu, HI, Deborah K. Wright, Wright & Kirschbraun LLLC, Wailuku, HI, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard W. Caldarone appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging fraud and other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Caldarone’s action because Caldarone failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving federal jurisdiction); In re Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litig., 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir.2008) (“Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties — each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.”). Moreover, even assuming that Fannie Mae is a federal government actor for purposes of this action, Caldarone did not state a Fifth Amendment claim against Fannie Mae.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Caldarone’s motions for recusal because no facts support a conclusion that Judge Watson’s and Judge Kur-ren’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir.2010) (setting forth standard of review and discussing grounds for recusal).

We do not consider issues or arguments 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) (per curiam).

All pending motions are denied.

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