(PC) Thomas v. Fry ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] OTIS MICHAEL THOMAS, No. 2:19-cv-01041 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 Vv. ORDER 14 J.C. FRY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion asking that the undersigned recuse. Recusal is governed by 18 | 28 U.S.C. § 455. District judges are statutorily obligated to recuse themselves if their 19 | “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or if they “have a personal bias or prejudice 20 | against a party.” United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566-57 (9th Cir. 21 | 1995). However, judges must recuse “only if the bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial 22 || source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding.” Pau v. 23 || Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation omitted). 24 | Here, plaintiff moves for recusal solely based on the court’s decisions during this proceeding. 25 | Because plaintiff fails to identify any adequate basis for recusal, and because there is no basis 26 || to reasonably question the undersigned’s impartiality, plaintiffs motion is denied. 27 || DATED: March 6, 2023. 2 2 28 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE