Anne Block v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 23, 2023
• Docket: 21-35922
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANNE BLOCK, Esquire, an individual, No. 21-35922

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-02018-RSM

v. MEMORANDUM* WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Anne Block appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion under

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6) to vacate the judgment and all

prior orders in two separate district court actions. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Latshaw v. Trainer

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Block’s motion to vacate because Block

failed to demonstrate grounds for such relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)

(providing in relevant part that a court may grant relief from a final judgment or

order if “it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated”);

Kemp v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1856, 1861 (2022) (noting that relief under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) is only available when Rules 60(b)(1) through (b)(5) are

inapplicable and even then “extraordinary circumstances must justify reopening”

(citation omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Block’s request for

disqualification because Block failed to establish that Judge Martinez engaged in

an improper ex parte communication or other conduct that would call into question

his impartiality. See Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008)

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that the substantive standard for

evaluating a motion to recuse is “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of

all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be

questioned” (citation, internal quotation marks, and alteration omitted)), abrogated

on other grounds by Simmons v. Himmelreich, 578 U.S. 621 (2016).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-35922