(HC) Yocom v. Allison ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM, Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-NONE-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER SANCTIONING PETITIONER 13 v. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RULING 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 15 Respondent. FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING 16 ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL 17 (Doc. No. 52) 18 19 Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a 20 petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Before the Court is 21 Petitioner’s “motion to screen the petition,” which the Court construes as a motion for ruling on 22 his petition. (Doc. No. 52). Incorporated in this motion is Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary 23 hearing and request that the undersigned recuse herself from this case. (See generally id.). The 24 Court will deny Petitioner’s motions. Further, the Court will sanction Petitioner. 25 On July 12, 2021, in light of Petitioner’s repeated duplicative and frivolous filings (see 26 (e.g. Doc. Nos. 6, 8, 14, 18, 20, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40, 42, 48, 50), the Court ordered Petitioner to 27 show cause why he should not be subject to sanctions. (Doc. No. 47). The Court ordered 28 Petitioner to respond to this show cause order within 14 days. (Id. at 3). Petitioner has not 1 responded to the order to show cause and the time for doing so has passed. Instead of responding 2 to the order to show cause, Petitioner filed two frivolous and repetitive filings, both of which 3 were stricken from the docket. (Doc. Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51). Petitioner now moves the Court to 4 rule on his petition, grant an evidentiary hearing, and for the undersigned to recuse herself from 5 the case. (Doc. No. 52). 6 A. Motion for Ruling on Petition 7 Petitioner moves the Court to rule on his petition expeditiously. (Doc. No. 52). The 8 Court has the discretion to manage its own docket. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th 9 Cir. 1992). And this Court has “long labored under one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation.” 10 See Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in Eastern District of California.1 11 Accordingly, the Petitioner is advised that the Court will issue findings and recommendations 12 regarding his petition in due course. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for ruling on the petition is 13 denied. 14 B. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing 15 Petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 52). Petitioner has previously moved 16 for an evidentiary hearing six times, all of which have been denied. (Doc. Nos. 8, 20, 33, 40, 42, 17 46). Evidentiary hearings are granted only under limited circumstances in habeas proceedings. 18 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii). Although Respondent has now filed an answer to the petition, 19 the Court has not yet reviewed the briefing. The Court will review the briefing and make findings 20 and recommendations in due course. If the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is 21 warranted, it will schedule one at that time. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 8(a). 22 C. Motion for Recusal 23 Petitioner seeks the undersigned to recuse herself from this case. (Doc. No. 52). The 24 standard for judicial recusal is as follows: “[w]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all 25 the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United 26 States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (brackets and internal 27 1 Available at: http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Standing%20Order%20CV.pdf; last 28 accessed September 14, 2021. 1 quotation marks omitted). Importantly, “[p]arties cannot attack a judge’s impartiality on the basis 2 of information and beliefs acquired while acting in his or her judicial capacity.” United States v. 3 Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 853 n.6 (9th Cir. 1982). “As the Supreme Court has explained, 4 ‘opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of 5 the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality 6 motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment 7 impossible.” United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891-92 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Liteky v. 8 United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). 9 Here, Petitioner has presented no basis for the recusal of the undersigned. Petitioner has 10 not stated, much less provided evidence, that the undersigned is biased against him. Rather, 11 Petitioner seemingly seeks recusal because he disagrees with the pace of the litigation of this 12 case. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for recusal is denied. 13 D. Order Sanctioning Petitioner 14 “Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person 15 to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims 16 of other litigants.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). 17 Here, Petitioner has been warned many times that his repeated frivolous and duplicative filings 18 will subject him to sanctions. (Doc. Nos. 40, 44, 47, 51). Because Petitioner has continued to 19 make such filings, the Court will subject him to sanctions. The Court orders that all future filings 20 shall be screened by the Court prior to entry on the docket. If the Court deems any future filings 21 to be frivolous and/or duplicative, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to return the filing to 22 the Petitioner. 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 24 1. Petitioner’s motion for ruling on the petition (Doc. No. 52) is DENIED; 25 2. Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 52) is DENIED; 26 3. Petitioner’s motion for recusal (Doc. No. 52) is DENIED; and 27 4. Petitioner is subject to sanctions in accordance with the above. The Clerk of Court 28 shall notify the Court prior to the docketing of any future filings by Petitioner, providing 1 an opportunity to the Court to screen such filings and direct the Clerk of Court to return 2 them to Petitioner if appropriate. 3 * | Dated: __ September 15,2021 Wiha Th fares Hack 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28