KIMNER v. BERKELEY COUNTY SC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-29No. No. 21-15487

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and upheld the denial of Kimner's motion for recusal.

Audrey Kimner appealed a district court's dismissal of her lawsuit against Berkeley County, which involved federal and state law claims stemming from South Carolina state court proceedings. The appellate court reviewed the dismissal de novo and concluded that Kimner had not presented sufficient factual allegations to establish that the district court possessed personal jurisdiction over Berkeley County. The court noted that the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, must be the source of contacts with the forum state to support jurisdiction.

Kimner also challenged the district judge's refusal to recuse himself from the case. The court rejected this argument, finding that Kimner had failed to establish either extrajudicial bias or prejudice on the judge's part. The court further rejected Kimner's various contentions that the judge acted with bias, engaged in unlawful or unethical conduct, or erred by declining to conduct a hearing on her motions.

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

Key issues

Whether the district court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant
Whether recusal of the district judge was warranted based on allegations of bias or prejudice

Procedural posture

The district court dismissed Kimner's action for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied her motion for recusal; she appealed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Audrey L. Kimner appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from South Carolina state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kimners action because Kimner failed to allege facts sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the district court had personal jurisdiction over defendant Berkeley County. See id. at 1074, 1076-77 (discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction); see also Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 291, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) (“[I]t is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kimners motion for recusal because Kimner failed to demonstrate extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and objective test to determine whether recusal is required).

We reject as unsupported by the record Kimners contentions that the district court was biased against her, engaged in unlawful or unethical behavior, or erred by failing to hold a hearing.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.