MEMORANDUM **

Michael A. Bruzzone appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging a conspiracy to defraud the federal and state governments and the public. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Stoner v. Santa Clara Cty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

The district court properly struck Bruz-zone’s complaint and dismissed the action because Bruzzone improperly attempted to proceed pro se as a relator in a qui tam action alleging a conspiracy to defraud the United States. See id. at 1125-27 (concluding that pro se litigants may not prosecute claims based on fraud against the Unites States).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bruzzone’s recusal motion because Bruzzone’s allegations of bias were exclusively based on adverse judicial rulings. See Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906, 911 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (explaining that “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”).

Defendants’ unopposed motion for judicial notice, filed February 20, 2015, is granted.

AFFIRMED.