In re: Silverio Arenas, Jr. v. Jay Inslee

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 15 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: SILVERIO ARENAS, Jr., No. 21-60062 Debtor, BAP No. 21-1056 ------------------------------ MEMORANDUM* SILVERIO ARENAS, Jr., Appellant, v. JAY INSLEE, Governor; ROBERT W.

FERGUSON, Attorney General; JOEL SACKS, Director of L & I; VICTOR VELAZQUEZ, L & I Case Manager; MAGGIE LELAND, L & I Legislative Liaison; TONYA MORGAN, L & I Auditor; GARY FRANKLIN, Doctor, L & I Medical Director; LEE GLASS, Doctor, L & I Associate Medical Dirctor; STEPHEN THIELKE, Doctor, L & I Medical Consultant; ERNIE LAPALM, L & I Deputy Director; MONTANA SALVONI, L & I Civil Rights Investigator; DAN JOHNSTON, L & I Civil Rights Investigator; ANGELA EMTER JIMENEZ, L & I Medical

Program Specialist; VICTORIA KENNEDY, L & I Assistance Director; URIEL INIGUEZ, L & I Director of Community Relations; CLAUDIA WATSON, L & I Case Manager; GREGORY G. SILVEY, AAG; SHELLY MORTINSON, AAG; LISA GILMAN, AGO Investigator; LISA VAN DER LUGT, Director of Governor’s Commission on Hispanic Affairs; JEAN DE ROCHERS, L & I RN, Appellees.

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Brand, Gan, and Taylor, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding Submitted May 11, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Silverio Arenas, Jr. appeals pro se from the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of Defendants1 in his action for civil rights violations, discrimination, and related claims under federal and Washington law. We review de novo,2 and we affirm.

First, we reject Arenas’s challenge to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Arenas knowingly and voluntarily consented to pursuing his claims in the bankruptcy court because he expressly agreed to do so after he “‘was made aware of the need for consent and the right to refuse it.’” Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 575 U.S. 665, 685, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1948, 191 L. Ed. 2d 911 (2015); see also 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

Second, we affirm the dismissal with prejudice of Arenas’s claims premised on federal criminal law. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The bankruptcy court and BAP correctly concluded that the criminal statutes Arenas relied upon “provide no basis for civil liability.” Aldabe, 616 F.2d at 1092; see also Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006); Opera Plaza Residential Parcel Homeowners Ass’n v. Hoang, 376 F.3d 831, 834–38 (9th Cir. 2004). Dismissal with prejudice was appropriate because those claims could not be saved by any amendment. See Gregg v. Haw. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 870 F.3d 883, 887 (9th Cir. 2017).

Third, we conclude that the bankruptcy court properly entered summary judgment on Arenas’s remaining array of claims.3 The record supports the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that no genuine issues of material fact remained for trial on any of those claims. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was adequately supported with evidence as to each claim, and Arenas failed to come forward with any evidence4 in the bankruptcy court to contradict that showing. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S. Ct. at 2553; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Moreover, the bankruptcy court properly refrained from making credibility determinations at summary judgment.

See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S. Ct. at 2513.

Finally, even assuming (without deciding) that the bankruptcy court judge was somewhat curt or impatient with Arenas, that does not amount to impermissible bias or partiality. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157–58, 127 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1994).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); see also Hornish v. King County, 899 F.3d 680, 702–03 (9th Cir. 2018).

AFFIRMED.