CHIMYERE McCALL; MONROE McCALL v. Damon Charles Williams

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHIMYERE McCALL; MONROE
McCALL,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
DAMON CHARLES WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant,
ZENE WILLIAMS,
Counter-claimant-Appellant.
No. 21-15638
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05126-SMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan M. Brnovich, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Damon Charles Williams and Zene Williams appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment in Chimyere and Monroe McCall’s diversity action. We have
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15638
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
summary judgment. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013).
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’
declaratory relief claim because the debt underlying the liens had been discharged
in bankruptcy. See In re Ybarra, 424 F.3d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A Chapter
7 bankruptcy discharge releases the debtor from personal liability for her pre-
bankruptcy debts.”).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’
wrongful lien claim as to the May 30, 2019 lien because defendants knew or had
reason to know that the May 30, 2019 lien was groundless. See Ariz. Rev. Stat.
§ 33-420(A) (authorizing special action on the ground that a lien against real
property is groundless or otherwise invalid); Webber v. Grindle Audio Prods., Inc.,
60 P.3d 224, 230 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (upholding liability under § 33-420(A) for
recording judgment liens when creditor knew that the judgment had been
discharged in bankruptcy).
We reject as without merit defendants’ contentions that the district court was
biased.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --