N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GREGOR

Y B ODINE, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. STATE OF ARIZONA; e t a l . , De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-15585 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-08088-NVW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ne il V. W ake , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Gre gory B odine a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his a c tion a

rising from his divorc e proc e e dings a n d a re late d sta

te c ourt a c tion. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Sadosk i v . Mosle y , 

# FIL ED JAN 02 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). Ac c o rdingly , B odine ’ s re que s t for ora l argum e nt is de nie d.435 F.3d 1076, 1077 n.1 (9th C ir. 2006) (judic ia l im m unity); C h olla Re a dy

Mix , Inc . v . C iv ish , 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th C ir. 2004) (Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt im m unity); N oe l v . Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th C ir. 2003) ( Rook e r-Fe ldman doc trine ). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d B odine ’ s a c t ion a s ba rre d by Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt a

nd judic ia l im

m unity . Se eBrook

s v . Sulphur Springs Valle y Ele c . C oop. , 951 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th C ir. 1991) (discussing thesc ope of Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt im

m unity an d noting tha

t it e x te nds to suits brought a ga inst a sta te by its own c itiz e ns, a s we ll a s by c itiz e ns of othe r sta

te s); Ashe lman v . Pope , 793 F.2d 1072, 1075-76 (9th C ir. 1986) (e n ba nc ) (disc u ssing thesc ope of judic ia l im m unity and e xpla ining tha

t § 1983 wa s not intende d to a bolish it). M ore ove r, to thee xte nt that B odine c ha lle n ge d sta

te c ourt de c isions, his c la im s we re ba rre d by the Rook e r-Fe ldman doc trine . Se e N oe l , 341 F.3d a

t 1156-58, 1163 (9th C ir. 2003) (e xpla ining thec irc um s ta nc e s unde r whic h the Rook e r-Fe l dman doc trine a

p plie s). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng B odine ’ s m otions unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 59(e ) and 60(b) be c a use B odine fa ile d to e s ta

blish grounds for suc h re l ie f. Se e Sc h. Dist. N o. 1J , Multnomah C

nty ., Or. v . AC

andS, Inc . , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th C ir. 1993) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd grounds for re c onside ration under Fe d. R . C iv. P. 59(e ) and 60(b)); se e a lso D. Ariz . Loc . 1 2 - 1 5 5 8 5 2R . 12.1(b) & 56.1(d) (providing thirty da y s to re spond to a

m otion to dism

iss whe re one or m ore of the grounds a sse rte d the re in is la c k of jurisdic tion); Fe d. R . C iv. P. 6(d) (e xte n ding time for se rvic e by m a il). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng B odine ’ s a pplic ation for de fa

ult judgme nt unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 55(b) be c a use the c ourt ha d a lre a dy dism isse d

the a c tion, a

nd se ve ra l fa c t ors supporte d the de nia l of de fa ult judgm e nt. Se e Eite l v . Mc C ool , 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th C ir. 1986) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w, sta

ting tha t this c ourt m a

y a ffirm a de nia l of a

m otion for de fa ult judgme nt on a

ny ba s is supporte d by

the re c ord, a

nd listing the

fa c tors for de te rm i ning whe the r to e nte r de fa ult judgme nt). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng B odine ’ s m otion for re c usa l. Se e Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th C ir. 2010) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re vie wand sta

ting tha t judic ia l rulings alone a lm ost ne ve r c onstitute a va lid ba sis for a

re c usa l m o tion ba se d on bia s or im pa rtia lity). W e re je c t B odine ’ s c o nte ntions c onc e rning funda m e nta l fa irne ss, a

nd tha t the d istric t c o urt viola

te d his dueproc e s s a

nd e qua l prote c t ion rights.

1 2 - 1 5 5 8 5 3W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Se ePadge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 5 5 8 5 4