(PC) Martin v. Castillo ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED ANDREW MARTIN, No. 1:22-cv-00002-DAD-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 D. CASTILLO, (Doc. No. 32) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Jared Andrew Martin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 2, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to 19 disqualify the assigned magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 32.) 20 A party may seek recusal/disqualification of a judge based on bias or prejudice. 21 Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient 22 affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either 23 against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but 24 another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. The party’s affidavit shall state the facts 25 and the reasons for the belief that bias, or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days 26 before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be 27 shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. 28 ///// 1 It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith. 2 See 28 U.S.C. § 144. 3 The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 (“§ 144”) is “‘whether a reasonable person 4 with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be 5 questioned.’” Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. 6 Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983)). To provide adequate grounds for recusal, the 7 prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source. Id. “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never 8 constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 9 (1994). Instead, the judicial rulings are a basis for appeal, not recusal. Id. (“In and of themselves 10 . . . [judicial rulings] cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in 11 the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no 12 extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for 13 recusal.”); Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Leslie’s allegations stem 14 entirely from the district judge’s adverse rulings. That is not an adequate basis for recusal.”) 15 (citations omitted). Further, § 144 expressly conditions relief upon the filing of a timely and 16 legally sufficient affidavit. See 28 U.S.C. § 144. If the affidavit is legally insufficient, then 17 recusal can be denied. See United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th 18 Cir. 1995). 19 Here, plaintiff argues that the assigned magistrate judge has acted “as an advocate for 20 corruption, abuse, torture behavior.” (Doc. No. 32 at 1.) Plaintiff has provided absolutely no 21 evidence that would cause the undersigned any reason to believe that the magistrate judge was 22 biased or prejudiced against plaintiff in any way. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. at 555 23 (“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. In and 24 of themselves (i.e., apart from surrounding comments or accompanying opinion), they cannot 25 possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances 26 evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is 27 involved.”). 28 ///// Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to disqualify the assigned magistrate judge (Doc. No. 32) ° is denied. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~ a -) 5 Dated: _ August 5, 2022 wae oy UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28