Opinion
No. 14-56569
01-30-2017
GILBERT E. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, as Trustee for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I, LLC, Green Point Mortgage Funding Trust 2006-AR1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR1; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00802-CAB-BGS MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Gilbert E. Martinez appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Martinez's action because Martinez failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez's motion to vacate the judgment because Martinez failed to establish grounds warranting relief. See Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and requirements to vacate judgment); United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) motion requirements).
We reject as unsupported by the record Martinez's contentions that the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on defendants' motion to dismiss due to its bias and denial of Martinez's due process rights. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994) (recognizing that adverse judicial rulings almost never constitute a basis for finding judicial bias).
We do not consider arguments not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.