(PC) Ramirez v. Director All Hospital ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, Case No. 1:22-cv-01642-ADA-SAB (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 11 TO REMOVE MAGISTRATE JUDGE v. BOONE 12 DIRECTOR ALL HOSPITAL, et al., (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19) 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Plaintiff Israel Maldonado Ramirez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 17 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to recuse the undersigned Magistrate 19 Judge, filed April 12, 2023. The Court finds an opposition by Defendants to be unnecessary. 20 Federal law allows a judge to recuse from a matter based on a question of partiality: 21 Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also 22 disqualify himself ... [w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or 23 personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.... 28 U.S.C. 455(a), (b)(1). 24 A party may seek recusal of a judge based on bias or prejudice: 25 26 Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or 27 prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no 1 further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding ... The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists[.] 2 3 28 U.S.C. § 144. 4 Relief under Section 144 is conditioned upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient 5 affidavit. A judge who finds the affidavit legally sufficient must proceed no further under Section 6 144 and must assign a different judge to hear the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 144; United States v. 7 Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). Nevertheless, where the affidavit lacks sufficiency, the 8 judge at whom the motion is directed can determine the matter and deny recusal. See United 9 States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 10 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that only after determining the legal sufficiency of 11 a Section 144 affidavit is a judge obligated to reassign decision on merits to another 12 judge)); United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995) (if the 13 affidavit is legally insufficient, then recusal can be denied). 14 The standard for legal sufficiency under Sections 144 and 455 is “ ‘whether a reasonable 15 person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might 16 reasonably be questioned.’” Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 17 1984) (quoting United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983)); United States v. 18 Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986). To provide adequate grounds for recusal, the prejudice 19 must result from an extrajudicial source. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 869. A judge's previous adverse 20 rulings alone are not sufficient for recusal. Nelson, 718 F.2d at 321. 21 Here, Plaintiff contends that the assigned Magistrate Judge should be removed “because 22 he is no good with the cause of aff[i[rming the case order to with a lawsuit.” (ECF No. 18.) 23 Plaintiff's motion for recusal in this case is substantively insufficient, as it alleges bias, prejudice 24 and impartiality based on the undersigned’s rulings in this action. Plaintiff's motion for 25 recusal fails to allege facts to support a contention that the undersigned has exhibited bias or 26 prejudice directed towards Plaintiff from an extrajudicial source. Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868. Thus, 27 Plaintiff does not provide a basis for recusal and the motion must be denied. See Liteky v. United ! States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”); id. (“In and of themselves ... [judicial rulings] cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the ‘ degree of favoritism or antagonism required ... when no_ extrajudicial source is ° involved.”) Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for recusal (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19) is denied. 6 7 IS SO ORDERED. Bl fee 8 Dated: _ April 14, 2023 OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28