(PC) Williams v. Corcoran State Prison ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANCE WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01009-JLT-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 v. (ECF No. 32) 14 CORCORAN STATE PRISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. Introduction 18 Plaintiff Lance Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On September 24, 2021, the Court screened the first amended complaint and found that it 21 stated cognizable claims against Defendants Pederson, Diaz, and Rios for excessive force in 22 violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, but failed 23 to state any other cognizable claims against any other defendants, or the claims were improperly 24 joined with other unrelated claims in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18. (ECF No. 25 16.) Plaintiff was granted leave to either file a second amended complaint, not to exceed twenty 26 (20) pages in length, or to notify the Court in writing that he was willing to proceed only on the 27 claims found cognizable by the Court. (Id.) 28 /// 1 Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 30, 2021, which was twenty-five 2 pages in length and included an additional thirty-one pages of exhibits and attachments. (ECF 3 No. 24.) The complaint also lacked any signature. On February 24, 2022, the Court therefore 4 ordered the second amended complaint stricken from the record and directed Plaintiff to file a 5 signed second amended complaint, not to exceed twenty pages in length, or to notify the Court in 6 writing that he is willing to proceed only on the claims found cognizable. (ECF No. 27.) 7 Following an extension of time, Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification of the Court’s February 8 24, 2022 order regarding whether exhibit pages count towards the 20-page limitation. (ECF No. 9 30.) The Court clarified that exhibit pages do not count towards the 20-page limitation and 10 denied Plaintiff’s request for a free copy of the stricken second amended complaint. (ECF No. 11 31.) Plaintiff was again directed to file a signed second amended complaint, in compliance with 12 the 20-page limitation, or to file a notice of his willingness to proceed on the claims found 13 cognizable by the Court, on or before April 26, 2022. (Id.) 14 II. Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge 15 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting recusal of the undersigned 16 and/or decline to consent to a Magistrate Judge, filed April 7, 2022. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff 17 requests recusal of the current Magistrate Judge and argues that the undersigned is exhibiting 18 racial bias, bias towards indigent pro se inmates, is making numerous orders and rulings that are 19 not in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or in any Local Court Rules that are prejudicing 20 Plaintiff’s claims and case. Specifically, Plaintiff complains that the undersigned has placed a 21 page limitation on his complaint of 20 pages, when the Eastern District courts encourage trying to 22 keep complaints at 25 pages. Plaintiff contends that because there is no rule limiting the amount 23 of pages in a complaint, this demonstrates bias by the undersigned. Plaintiff states that he forgot 24 to sign his second amended complaint due to his mental health diagnosis of ADHD. Plaintiff 25 requests that the undersigned recuse herself from this case, and if not, Plaintiff moves to decline 26 his consent to a Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff further requests that the Court vacate the order 27 striking the second amended complaint and accept it and allow Plaintiff to submit a signed and 28 dated page, attached to his motion, to add to the second amended complaint. If the Court denies 1 Plaintiff’s request, Plaintiff implies that he will file an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of 2 Appeals. (Id.) 3 A magistrate judge must disqualify himself if “his impartiality might be reasonably 4 questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or 5 personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. 6 § 455(b)(1). “[J]udicial rulings or information acquired by the court in its judicial capacity will 7 rarely support recusal.” United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 8 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). 9 The objective test for determining whether recusal is required is whether a reasonable 10 person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might 11 reasonably be questioned. Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147 (quotation marks and citation omitted); 12 Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008). “Adverse findings do not equate to 13 bias,” Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147. 14 To the extent Plaintiff seeks withdrawal of any consent he has filed to Magistrate Judge 15 jurisdiction, such a request should be filed as a separate motion to withdraw consent, which will 16 be reviewed by the assigned District Judge. In the instant order, the undersigned considers only 17 Plaintiff’s arguments with respect to recusal. 18 Plaintiff’s arguments are not sufficient to show personal bias or prejudice by the 19 undersigned. Plaintiff’s objection to the Court setting a page limitation on his amended complaint 20 does not in and of itself demonstrate bias against him. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s 21 determination of the number of pages required for him to state a claim is not a legitimate ground 22 for seeking recusal or disqualification. There is no evidence that the undersigned’s orders were 23 derived from any extrajudicial source beyond the papers and record in this matter. To the extent 24 Plaintiff is arguing that he is incapable of stating a cognizable claim without exceeding a 20-page 25 limitation, this argument is belied by the fact that the undersigned has already found that 26 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint did state cognizable excessive force and retaliation claims 27 against some of the named defendants. 28 /// 1 Plaintiff’s other conclusory allegations regarding bias due to race or indigency, based on 2 nothing more than speculation, are legally insufficient to establish a reasonable question as to the 3 undersigned’s impartiality or that a bias or prejudice exists. The request for recusal will therefore 4 be denied. 5 III. Conclusion and Order 6 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint or notice to the Court of his willingness to 7 proceed on claims found cognizable in the first amended complaint remains due on or 8 before April 26, 2022. 9 If Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, Plaintiff is reminded that his 10 amended complaint should be brief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), but it must state what each named 11 defendant did that led to the deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 12 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). Although accepted as true, the “[f]actual allegations must be 13 [sufficient] to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 14 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). 15 Additionally, Plaintiff may not change the nature of this suit by adding new, unrelated 16 claims in his first amended complaint. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no 17 “buckshot” complaints). 18 Finally, Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. 19 Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 927 (9th Cir. 2012). Therefore, Plaintiff’s second 20 amended complaint must be “complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded 21 pleading.” Local Rule 220. This includes any exhibits or attachments Plaintiff wishes to 22 incorporate by reference. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Plaintiff’s motion for recusal of Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 32), is DENIED; 25 2. On or before April 26, 2022, Plaintiff SHALL either: 26 a. File a signed second amended complaint, not to exceed twenty (20) pages in 27 length, curing the deficiencies identified by the Court’s September 24, 2021 28 screening order (or file a notice of voluntary dismissal); or 1 b. Notify the Court in writing that he does not wish to file a second amended 2 complaint and he is willing to proceed only on the claims against Defendants 3 Pederson, Diaz, and Rios for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 4 Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; and 5 3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action will be dismissed, without 6 prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and for failure to prosecute. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: April 12, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28