Serrano v. California

Ninth Circuit

Serrano v. California

71 F. App'x 651

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 24, 2003·No. No. 02-56971; D.C. No. CV-02-01954-DT·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Roderick Serrano appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his ac[652]*652tion alleging that various members of the California Department of Industrial Relations and his former employer, Graphics Research, Inc., violated his equal protection and due process rights in the course of denying his application for workers’ compensation benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Kennedy v. Southern California Edison Co., 268 F.3d 763, 767 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court lacked jurisdiction over Serrano’s action because it sought review of a final state court judgment dismissing Serrano’s petition for review of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s denial of his workers’ compensation claim. See Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbos a, 134 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that a claim filed with a state agency that receives a final state court judgment is barred from federal district court review).

Serrano’s contention that the magistrate and district judges exhibited bias by dismissing his action lacks merit. Adverse rulings alone do not support a finding that the judges were biased. See Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Roderick Serrano appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his ac[652]*652tion alleging that various members of the California Department of Industrial Relations and his former employer, Graphics Research, Inc., violated his equal protection and due process rights in the course of denying his application for workers’ compensation benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Kennedy v. Southern California Edison Co., 268 F.3d 763, 767 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court lacked jurisdiction over Serrano’s action because it sought review of a final state court judgment dismissing Serrano’s petition for review of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board’s denial of his workers’ compensation claim. See Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbos a, 134 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that a claim filed with a state agency that receives a final state court judgment is barred from federal district court review).

Serrano’s contention that the magistrate and district judges exhibited bias by dismissing his action lacks merit. Adverse rulings alone do not support a finding that the judges were biased. See Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

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.

Serrano v. California, 71 F. App'x 651 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

71 F. App'x 651 (Serrano v. California) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 444, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 615 Olson Farms, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. J. Antonio Barbosa, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Executive Secretary of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board Michael B. Stoker, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board Ivonne Ramos Richardson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as a Member of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board Paul Richardson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as General Counsel of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants

134 F.3d 933 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)

Leslie v. Grupo ICA

198 F.3d 1152 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)

Opinion

Related