Edward P. Kakalia, proceeding pro se, appealed from a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration in his underlying 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the State of Hawaii and the United States. The district court had previously entered judgment, and Kakalia sought to reopen the matter post-judgment. He argued that the district court was biased and sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of this motion for an abuse of discretion.
The panel applied the standard of review for an abuse of discretion, noting that a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) requires a specific showing of grounds for relief, such as mistake, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence. The court found that Kakalia failed to establish any such basis for relief. Regarding the claim of judicial bias, the court held that the contention was unsupported by the record. Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Liteky v. United States, the court explained that judicial rulings made during the course of a case rarely, if ever, support an allegation of bias unless they reveal a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Finally, the court adhered to the principle that it will not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, dismissing any new arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
The district court's denial of the motion for reconsideration stands, meaning the original judgment in the § 1983 action remains in effect. The decision reinforces the high bar for proving judicial bias and clarifies that appellate courts will not entertain arguments that were not properly preserved in the opening brief. No remand instructions were issued as the appeal was affirmed.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download