Case Name: Pepi SCHAFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randall R. NEWSOME, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-22
Citations: 136 F. App'x 104
Docket Number: No. 04-16468
Parties: Pepi SCHAFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randall R. NEWSOME, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 136
Pages: 104–104

Head Matter:
Pepi SCHAFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Randall R. NEWSOME, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of California; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-16468.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2005.
Decided June 22, 2005.
Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Pepi Sehafler appeals pro se the district court's orders dismissing her action, denying her motion to recuse, and denying her motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Schafler's action because her allegations were conclusory and based on unreasonable inferences. See Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Mendez, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1828, — L.Ed.2d-(2005).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Schafler's motion for recusal, see Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.1993) (mere speculative assertions of invidious motive are insufficient to show judicial bias), or by denying her motion for reconsideration, see School Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) ("Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law."). Schafler's contention that the district court should have allowed her leave to amend is unavailing because amendment would be futile. See Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int'l, LP, 300 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.2002).
Schafler's remaining contentions lack merit.
Judge Randall R. Newsome filed a motion for clarification as to whether the court expects him to file a brief on appeal. The Court does not expect a response.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.