Northon et al v. Rule et al

Memorandum from the USCA relating to the Notice of Appeal 32 .

D. Or.December 14, 2009

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent * except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without ** oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). GT/Research NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIYSA NORTHON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. ANN RULE, an individual; et al., Defendants - Appellees. No. 07-35319 D.C. No. CV-06-00851-MO MEMORANDUM * Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 17, 2009** Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Liysa Northon appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting defendants’ special motion to strike under Oregon’s anti-SLAPP statute, Or. Rev. FILED DEC 14 2009 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Case: 07-35319 12/14/2009 Page: 1 of 3 ID: 7162653 DktEntry: 67-1 Case 3:06-cv-00851-MO Document 44 Filed 12/14/09 Page 1 of 3 Page ID#: 219 GT/Research 07-353192 Stat. § 31.150. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm. The district court did not err in granting defendants’ special motion because Northon failed to meet her burden of establishing that there was a probability that she would prevail on her claims. See id. at 986 (explaining that plaintiff has burden to “establish that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim by presenting substantial evidence to support a prima facie case”). Specifically, Northon failed to show how any statements made in defendants’ book may have been defamatory. See id. at 989 (affirming dismissal of defamation claim because, inter alia, plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence to support a prima facie case). Northon’s contention that the magistrate judge was impermissibly biased against her is unavailing because she never filed a recusal motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. See United States v. Castro, 887 F.2d 988, 1000 (9th Cir. 1989). Northon’s contention regarding ineffective assistance of counsel before the district court is unavailing because a plaintiff has no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil action. See Nicholson v. Rushen, 767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). Case: 07-35319 12/14/2009 Page: 2 of 3 ID: 7162653 DktEntry: 67-1 Case 3:06-cv-00851-MO Document 44 Filed 12/14/09 Page 2 of 3 Page ID#: 220 GT/Research 07-353193 We do not consider issues Northon has raised for the first time on appeal. See Turnacliff v. Westly, 546 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir.2008) (declining to consider a new issue on appeal) Northon’s remaining contentions lack merit. AFFIRMED. Case: 07-35319 12/14/2009 Page: 3 of 3 ID: 7162653 DktEntry: 67-1 Case 3:06-cv-00851-MO Document 44 Filed 12/14/09 Page 3 of 3 Page ID#: 221