(PC) Reed v. Buckel ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MYCHAL REED, Case No. 1:23-cv-01431-ADA-BAM (PC) 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 v. (ECF No. 12) 10 BUCKEL, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Mychal Reed (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 14 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet 15 been screened. 16 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s request for recusal of the undersigned from his 17 case, filed October 23, 2023. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff states that after a careful and honest review 18 of the undersigned’s case files, he does not believe he can have a fair complaint process or trial 19 with the undersigned presiding. Plaintiff, after conferring with other inmate litigants, also does 20 not believe he can have a fair complaint process with the undersigned presiding. Plaintiff also 21 attaches a letter directed to the Chief District Judge raising more general concerns regarding the 22 processing of civil rights actions by the Court’s Magistrate Judges, and expressing his desire for a 23 jury trial with a District Judge, not a Magistrate Judge. (Id.) 24 A Magistrate Judge must disqualify himself if “his impartiality might be reasonably 25 questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or 26 personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. 27 § 455(b)(1). “[J]udicial rulings or information acquired by the court in its judicial capacity will 28 rarely support recusal.” United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 1 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). 2 The objective test for determining whether recusal is required is whether a reasonable 3 person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might 4 reasonably be questioned. Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147 (quotation marks and citation omitted); 5 Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008). “Adverse findings do not equate to 6 bias,” Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147. 7 To the extent Plaintiff seeks assignment of his case to a District Judge for the purposes of 8 a jury trial, the request is unnecessary. If Plaintiff does not consent to the jurisdiction of a 9 Magistrate Judge for all purposes, and his case proceeds to a trial, a District Judge will preside 10 over the trial. In the instant order, the undersigned considers only Plaintiff’s arguments with 11 respect to recusal. 12 Plaintiff’s arguments are not sufficient to show personal bias or prejudice by the 13 undersigned. Plaintiff states only that he has reviewed the case files of the undersigned and 14 conferred with other inmate litigants, and on this basis requests recusal. However, Plaintiff does 15 not provide any basis for his request that would support a finding that the undersigned holds any 16 personal bias or prejudice concerning a party to this action, or other personal knowledge of 17 disputed evidentiary facts concerning this proceeding. Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations, based 18 on nothing more than speculation, are legally insufficient to establish a reasonable question as to 19 the undersigned’s impartiality or that a bias or prejudice exists. The request for recusal will 20 therefore be denied. 21 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for recusal of Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 12), is 22 HEREBY DENIED. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: October 24, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28