
    Michael A. BRUZZONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INTEL CORPORATION; Arm, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-17003
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 21, 2016
    Michael A. Bruzzone, Pro Se, Richmond, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    William Faulkner, Mcmanis Faulkner, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Intel Corporation.
    
      Brian Michael Affrunti, William Faulkner, Mcmanis Faulkner, San Jose, CA, Amy Eileen Hoyt, Burke Williams & Sor-ensen, LLP, Riverside, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Arm, Inc.
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     