(PC) Edward Thomas v. Pfeiffer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD N. THOMAS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01131-NONE-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL 13 v. (Doc. No. 13) 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Edward N. Thomas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights case 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff moved to recuse Magistrate Judge 19 Jeremy D. Peterson. (Doc. No. 13). Judge Peterson had previously been assigned to this case 20 before it was reassigned to the undersigned on November 17, 2020. (Doc. No. 9). 21 Federal law provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States 22 shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be 23 questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). When a judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 24 party,” “personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” where “in 25 private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy,” or “has been a material witness 26 concerning it,” recusal is warranted. A judge’s decision to recuse hinges on “whether a 27 reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality 28 might reasonably be questioned.” Blye v. Kozinski, 466 F. App'x 650, 651 (9th Cir. 2012). When 1 | acase is reassigned from a judge for whom recusal is sought, that motion should be denied as 2 | moot. Thomas v. Pfeiffer, No. 1:19-CV-1501 AWI HBK, 2020 WL 7042806, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 3 | Dec. 1, 2020). 4 Plaintiff asserts that Judge Peterson should recuse because he allegedly minimized and 5 | mocked plaintiff and made factual misstatements while screening plaintiff's complaint in the 6 | unrelated matter 1:19-cv-01501-AWI-HBK. (Doc. No. 13 at 1-3). In reviewing Judge Peterson’s 7 | screening order in that case, which recommended that plaintiff be denied in forma pauperis 8 | status, the court finds no evidence of impropriety. (1:19-cv-01501-AWI-HBK, Doc. No. 4). The 9 | district judge fully adopted those findings and recommendations. (1:19-cv-01501-AWI-HBK, 10 | Doc. No. 9). That Judge Peterson previously ruled against plaintiff in an unrelated case is not 11 | grounds for recusal because “prior adverse rulings do not constitute sufficient cause to recuse.” 12 | Aston v. United States, 162 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 13 | 934, 939 (9th Cir.1986)). Plaintiff's disagreement with the court’s rulings is therefore an 14 | insufficient foundation for seeking recusal. 15 Plaintiff has provided the court no legitimate reason to question Judge Peterson’s 16 || impartiality and thus no basis to order his recusal. The recusal motion should further be denied 17 | because Judge Peterson is no longer assigned to this case. Sugarman v. United States, No. CR-F- 18 | 95-5018 REC, 2006 WL 1761452, at *1 n. 1 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2006). 19 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 20 Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal (Doc. No. 13) is DENIED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: May 24, 2021 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28