CARAFFA v. UNITED STATES (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-21No. No. 20-16653

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing Caraffa's constitutional claims action because the defendants were either entitled to immunity or were not properly named defendants, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caraffa's various procedural motions.

Alfred Caraffa appealed the dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit against federal and state officials, raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens. The appellate court upheld the dismissal, finding that the defendants were either protected by official immunity or were not proper parties to the lawsuit. The court also addressed several procedural challenges Caraffa raised, including requests to disqualify the judge, consolidate cases, enter default judgment, and proceed in forma pauperis. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's handling of these motions and rejected Caraffa's unsupported contentions regarding service and consideration of evidence.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether defendants were proper parties to a Bivens action against federal officers
Whether defendants possessed official or judicial immunity
Whether the district judge should have been disqualified based on alleged bias
Whether the district court properly denied consolidation and default judgment motions

Procedural posture

Caraffa appealed pro se from the district court's dismissal of his § 1983 and Bivens civil rights action.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Alfred E. Caraffa appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Caraffas action because defendants were either entitled to immunity or were not properly named. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-86, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (explaining that a Bivens action is only available against federal officers, not against the United States); Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office is not a proper defendant in a § 1983 action); Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining judicial immunity); Porter v. Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 491 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining Eleventh Amendment immunity).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caraffas request to recuse Judge Liburdi because Caraffa failed to file an affidavit alleging bias or establish extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 455 (setting forth circumstances requiring recusal); United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 869 (9th Cir. 1980) (setting forth standard of review).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caraffas motion to consolidate. See Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court has broad discretion to consolidate actions).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Caraffas motion for default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 (outlining elements of default and default judgment); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth standard of review and factors for determining whether to enter default judgment).

We reject as unsupported by the record Caraffas contentions that the district court improperly denied in forma pauperis status, failed to grant leave amend, failed to consider Caraffas exhibits or evidence, included extraneous documents in the case file, or failed to serve documents.

Caraffas pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.