Ronald Van Hook v. State of Idaho

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAR 7 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD VAN HOOK, No. 22-35836

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:21-cv-00199-BLW v.

MEMORANDUM* STATE OF IDAHO; JOHN MEIENHOFFER; ALPS PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; RYAN O’NEAL, Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation; JUDGES OF THE IDAHO THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COLLECTIVELY; STEVEN FISHER; MARY GRANT; KIMBERLY STRETCH; VIRGINIA BOND; DIANE MINNICH; DAVID W. CANTRILL; AARON HOOPER; GARY DEMEYER, Or Estate of Gary DeMeyer; OFFICERS OF THE COURT IN ADAMS COUNTY, Collectively or Individually; OTHER POTENTIAL DEFENDANTS,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 7, 2024** San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges

Ronald Van Hook appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his motion to reopen the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion,1 and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Van Hook’s motion to reopen the time to appeal. It applied the correct legal standard,2 and its factual finding that Van Hook did not show non-receipt of notice of judgment was not “illogical, implausible, or without support” from the record. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Because the district court’s denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion, we are without jurisdiction to consider Van Hook’s arguments concerning the merits of the underlying case. Cf. Stephanie-Cardona LLC v. Smith’s Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 476 F.3d 701, 703 (9th Cir. 2007).

Judge Winmill was not required to recuse himself from considering Van Hook’s Rule 4(a)(6) motion. Neither Van Hook’s lawsuit against the judge nor his unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct are sufficient grounds for recusal. See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913, 914 & n. 5 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939–40 (9th Cir. 1986).

We deny Van Hook’s motion for judicial notice and supplementation of the record. Van Hook has failed to specifically connect his prior proceedings with the district court’s denial of his motion to reopen the time to appeal,3 and we will not do so on his behalf.4

Finally, we decline to consider Van Hook’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.