(PC)Ramirez v. Khale ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, 1:22-cv-01653-ADA-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUED MOTION TO RECUSE 14 KHALE, et al., (Doc. No. 12) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s construed motion for the undersigned to recuse 18 herself as the United States Magistrate Judge from this action. (Doc. No. 12). Plaintiff, a 19 prisoner, has a pro se complaint pending, which he filed on December 30, 2022. (Doc. No. 1). 20 The single page motion is disjointed. Plaintiff only asks, “to remove Helen BK out of the case” 21 because Plaintiff does not want her “dueing [sic] the wrong thing.” (Doc. No. 12 at 1:3-4). 22 Whether a federal judge must recuse oneself is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455. Title 28 23 U.S.C. § 455 provides that a “magistrate judge shall disqualify [herself] in any proceeding in 24 which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or “[w]here [she] has a personal bias or 25 prejudice concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a). “The standard for judging the appearance of 26 partiality requiring recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is an objective one and involves ascertaining 27 ‘whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s 28 impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th 1 | Cir. 2008); Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). The 2 | “reasonable person” is not someone who 1s “hypersensitive or unduly suspicious,” but rather is a 3 | “well-informed, thoughtful observer.” Holland, at 913. “The standard “‘must not be so broadly 4 | construed that it becomes, in effect, presumptive, so that recusal is mandated upon the merest 5 | unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or prejudice.’” Holland, 519 F.3d at 913. 6 The court’s analysis is “fact-driven” requiring “an independent examination of the unique 7 | facts and circumstances of the particular claim at issue.” Jd. at 914 (citation omitted). Thus, 8 | “except in the “rarest of circumstances,” recusal under § 455(a) is limited to “extra judicial 9 | source” factors requiring the reason for recusal to be “something other than rulings, opinions 10 | formed or statements made by the judge during the course of trial.” Jd. (citing Liteky v. United 11 States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-56, 114. S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994)). 12 Applying these principles to the instant matter, the Court declines to recuse itself from this 13 || case. Notably, Plaintiff identifies no reasons, yet alone identifying any extra judicial source 14 | factors, to warrant the Court recusing itself. The Court will issue a screening order under 28 15 || U.S.C. § 1915A in due course. 16 According, it is ORDERED: 17 Plaintiffs construed motion for the Court to recuse itself (Doc. No. 12) is DENIED. 18 | Dated: _ February 16, 2023 Wiha. Mh. Bareh Zaskth 20 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28