(PC)Foster v. Burnes ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICKY TYRONE FOSTER, Case No: 1:22-cv-00934-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL INCORPORATED IN FIRST 13 v. AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 J.BURNES and T. CAMPBELL, (Doc. No. 20-1) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s second motion for recusal, (Doc. No. 20-1, 18 “Motion”) incorporated within Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 20), filed on 19 September 5, 2023. The undersigned previously denied Plaintiff’s motion for recusal filed earlier 20 on July 27, 2023. (Doc. Nos. 13, 14). Liberally construed, Plaintiff again seeks the recusal of the 21 undersigned. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. 22 Plaintiff’s requests the undersigned recuse herself due to his belief that the undersigned is 23 biased against him. (Doc. No. 20 at 11). Without identifying any factual basis, Plaintiff asserts 24 that the undesigned “appears to harbor racial bias” and suggests she is a “current white 25 supremacist.” (Id. at 10:6-7). As support, Plaintiff points to the undersigned making findings and 26 issuing rulings against him in this matter and his other active prisoner civil rights matter, Foster v. 27 Kaweah Delta Medical Center et al., E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:21-cv-01044. (Doc. No. 20 at 9-10). 28 //// 1 APPLICABLE LAW 2 Whether a federal judge must recuse oneself is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455. Title 28 3 U.S.C. § 455 provides that a “magistrate judge shall disqualify [herself] in any proceeding in 4 which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or “[w]here [she] has a personal bias or 5 prejudice concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a). “The standard for judging the appearance of 6 partiality requiring recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is an objective one and involves ascertaining 7 ‘whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s 8 impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th 9 Cir. 2008); United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010). The “reasonable 10 person” is not someone who is “hypersensitive or unduly suspicious,” but rather is a “well- 11 informed, thoughtful observer.” Holland, at 913. “The standard “‘must not be so broadly 12 construed that it becomes, in effect, presumptive, so that recusal is mandated upon the merest 13 unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or prejudice.’” Holland, 519 F.3d at 913. The court’s 14 analysis is “fact-driven” requiring “an independent examination of the unique facts and 15 circumstances of the particular claim at issue.” Id. at 914 (citation omitted). “Adverse findings 16 do not equate to bias.” Johnson, 610 F. 3d at 1147. Thus, “except in the “rarest of 17 circumstances,” recusal under § 455(a) is limited to “extra judicial source” factors requiring the 18 reason for recusal to be “something other than rulings, opinions formed or statements made by the 19 judge during the course of trial.” Id. (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554–56 20 (1994)). 21 ANALYSIS 22 Applying these principles to the instant matter, the undersigned declines to recuse herself 23 from this case. Notably, Plaintiff fails to identify any extra judicial source factors to warrant a 24 recusal. Instead, Plaintiff provides only conclusory allegations regarding the undersigned’s 25 alleged racial bias, which is based on nothing more than speculation and thus is legally 26 insufficient to establish a reasonable question of the unsigned’ s impartiality or bias. Moreover, 27 this case remains subject to final adjudication by a United States District Court Judge and not the 28 undersigned. 1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 2 Plaintiff's motion for the recusal of the undersigned (Doc. No. 20-1) is 3 DENIED. 4 Dated: December 11, 2023 ooo. Zh. fared 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