Ryan v. County of Imperial ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Ryan et al., Case No.: 21cv1076-JO-LR 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF 13 v. JOSEPH RYAN’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL 14 County of Imperial et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Joseph Ryan filed a motion for Judge Ohta’s recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 455 and the Due Process clause of the Constitution. Dkt. 140 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff bases 22 the recusal motion on the “content of the orders issued by Judge Ohta on September 29, 23 2022.” Id. at 13. He “does not allege that the honorable Judge has engaged in any 24 misconduct that might defile the Court’s processes or interfere with its due administration 25 of matters.” Id. Instead, Plaintiff alleges only that a reasonable observer would conclude 26 from the Court’s orders dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint that the undersigned is conspiring 27 with Defendants against Plaintiffs. 28 1 The Supreme Court has recognized that due process confers the right to an impartial 2 || and disinterested judge. See Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980). A judge 3 || should recuse herself when “the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally 4 tolerable.” Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975). 28 U.S.C. § 455 further instructs 5 ||that a federal judge must recuse herself from any proceeding in which her “impartiality 6 ||might reasonably be questioned” or if she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 7 || party. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 455 “require recusal only if the 8 || bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made 9 || during the course of the proceeding.” Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 10 || 1999) (quoting Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988)). 11 Aside from his disagreement with the Court’s orders, Plaintiff has not identified any 12 || grounds for a reasonable person to question the undersigned’s bias, personal prejudice, or 13 partiality. Instead, Plaintiff's arguments for recusal hinge solely on the Court’s adverse 14 rulings; from these, he argues, “[a]n objective observer would have to conclude that—on 15 || the face—the record made by Judge Jinsook Ohta in the three [orders] issued on September 16 2022, is so replete with outright misrepresentations of Plaintiff's facts, and facts 17 || presented grossly without candor by the Judge, that any objective observer might conclude 18 || that it is the product of a wholly dishonest, sneaky Judge acting for corrupt reasons.” Mot. 19 22. This logic is not sufficient to demonstrate that this judge has a bias or prejudice 20 stemming from an extrajudicial source. Because Plaintiff does not point to any facts that 21 would lead one to reasonably question the undersigned’s impartiality, his motion for 22 ||recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the due process clause is DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: December 7, 2022 25 26 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 27 United States District Judge 28