Court Opinion

ID: 9394528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 18:00:32.709257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:00.715964
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             MAY 15 2023
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SILVERIO ARENAS, Jr.,                     No.    21-60062

               Debtor,                           BAP No. 21-1056

------------------------------
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
SILVERIO ARENAS, Jr.,

               Appellant,

 v.

JAY INSLEE, Governor; ROBERT W.
FERGUSON, Attorney General; JOEL
SACKS, Director of L & I; VICTOR
VELAZQUEZ, L & I Case Manager;
MAGGIE LELAND, L & I Legislative
Liaison; TONYA MORGAN, L & I
Auditor; GARY FRANKLIN, Doctor, L &
I Medical Director; LEE GLASS, Doctor,
L & I Associate Medical Dirctor;
STEPHEN THIELKE, Doctor, L & I
Medical Consultant; ERNIE LAPALM, L
& I Deputy Director; MONTANA
SALVONI, L & I Civil Rights
Investigator; DAN JOHNSTON, L & I
Civil Rights Investigator; ANGELA
EMTER JIMENEZ, L & I Medical

      *
        This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Program Specialist; VICTORIA
KENNEDY, L & I Assistance Director;
URIEL INIGUEZ, L & I Director of
Community Relations; CLAUDIA
WATSON, L & I Case Manager;
GREGORY G. SILVEY, AAG; SHELLY
MORTINSON, AAG; LISA GILMAN,
AGO Investigator; LISA VAN DER
LUGT, Director of Governor’s
Commission on Hispanic Affairs; JEAN
DE ROCHERS, L & I RN,

             Appellees.

                         Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
                          Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
              Brand, Gan, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

                            Submitted May 11, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

      Silverio Arenas, Jr. appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy

Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of

      **
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
                                         2
Defendants1 in his action for civil rights violations, discrimination, and related

claims under federal and Washington law. We review de novo,2 and we affirm.

      First, we reject Arenas’s challenge to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Arenas knowingly and voluntarily consented to pursuing his claims in the

bankruptcy court because he expressly agreed to do so after he “‘was made aware

of the need for consent and the right to refuse it.’” Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v.

Sharif, 575 U.S. 665, 685, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1948, 191 L. Ed. 2d 911 (2015); see

also 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

      Second, we affirm the dismissal with prejudice of Arenas’s claims premised

on federal criminal law. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.

1980) (per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The bankruptcy court and BAP

correctly concluded that the criminal statutes Arenas relied upon “provide no basis

for civil liability.” Aldabe, 616 F.2d at 1092; see also Allen v. Gold Country

Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006); Opera Plaza Residential Parcel

      1
       “Defendants” refers to Jay Inslee, Robert Ferguson, Joel Sacks, Victor
Velazquez, Maggie Leland, Tonya Morgan, Gary Franklin, Lee Glass, Stephen
Thielke, Ernie LaPalm, Montana Salvoni, Dan Johnston, Angela Jimenez, Victoria
Kennedy, Uriel Iniguez, Claudia Watson, Gregory Silvey, Shelly Mortinson, Lisa
Gilman, Lisa van der Lugt, and Jean de Rochers.
      2
        See Cafasso ex rel. United States v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d
1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2011); Retz v. Samson (In re Retz), 606 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th
Cir. 2010); Ghomeshi v. Sabban (In re Sabban), 600 F.3d 1219, 1221–22 (9th Cir.
2010).
                                           3
Homeowners Ass’n v. Hoang, 376 F.3d 831, 834–38 (9th Cir. 2004). Dismissal

with prejudice was appropriate because those claims could not be saved by any

amendment. See Gregg v. Haw. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 870 F.3d 883, 887 (9th Cir.

2017).

      Third, we conclude that the bankruptcy court properly entered summary

judgment on Arenas’s remaining array of claims.3 The record supports the

bankruptcy court’s conclusion that no genuine issues of material fact remained for

trial on any of those claims. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24,

106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was adequately supported with

evidence as to each claim, and Arenas failed to come forward with any evidence4

in the bankruptcy court to contradict that showing. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at

324, 106 S. Ct. at 2553; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49,

106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Moreover, the bankruptcy court

      3
        Both the bankruptcy court and the BAP discussed how certain of those
claims could also be dismissed with prejudice. Because we may affirm on any
ground supported by the record, we do not opine on that alternative rationale. See
City & County of San Francisco v. Barr, 965 F.3d 753, 761 (9th Cir. 2020).
      4
       Cf. Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1090 n.1 (9th Cir. 1996), amended by
135 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1998).
                                         4
properly refrained from making credibility determinations at summary judgment.

See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S. Ct. at 2513.

      Finally, even assuming (without deciding) that the bankruptcy court judge

was somewhat curt or impatient with Arenas, that does not amount to

impermissible bias or partiality. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56,

114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157–58, 127 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1994).

      We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters

not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett

v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); see also

Hornish v. King County, 899 F.3d 680, 702–03 (9th Cir. 2018).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          5