The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MYCHAL ANDRA REED, Case No.: 18-CV-361 JLS (LL)
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
13 vs. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO REPLACE
14 DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,
MAGISTRATE (AND CLERK)
15 Defendants.
(ECF No. 106)
16
17
18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Mychal Andra Reed’s Request to Replace
19 Magistrate (and Clerk) (“Mot.,” ECF No. 106). Plaintiff declines to “divulge his specific
20 reasoning for said request,” although offers to “do so at this Court[’]s behest.” Id. at 1. He
21 adds that his “only endeavor is to receive justice against defendants . . . and to be dealt with
22 by an ‘impartial’ jurist who will . . . treat[ him] ‘fairly] in the process, minus bias/
23 prejudice.” Id. at 2.
24 Although Plaintiff does not specify whether he brings his Motion under 28 U.S.C.
25 § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), his Motion fails under either standard because he fails to
26 present any “facts” from which a “reasonable person” could “conclude that the judge’s
27 impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” see Yagman v. Republic Ins. (“Yagman II”),
28 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added) (quoting In re Yagman (“Yagman
1 ||P’), 796 F.2d 1165, 1179 (9th Cir.), amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986), mandamus
2 || granted by Brown v. Baden, 815 F.2d 575 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, Real v. Yagman, 484
3 963 (1987)) (citing United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir.), cert.
4 || denied, 449 U.S. 1012 (1980)) and recusal is not warranted under either statute based on
5 ||speculation. See, e.g., Clemens vy. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175,
6 || 1180 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Yagman I, 987 F.2d at 626). The Court therefore DENIES
7 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff MAY RENEW his Motion only
8 he can identify specific facts that would cause a reasonable person to question Magistrate
9 || Judge Lopez’s impartiality.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
1]
12 ||Dated: February 27, 2020 tt
13 jen Janis L. Sammartino
14 United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
95 ||! A review of the docket indicates that Magistrate Judge Lopez has rejected several submissions by
Plaintiff as not appropriate for judicial notice, see ECF Nos. 40, 43, 79, 80, 81, and has denied Plaintiff’ s
26 || requests for appointment of counsel, see ECF Nos. 58, 94, 103; however, “[u]nfavorable rulings alone are
legally insufficient to require recusal . . . , even when the number of such unfavorable rulings is
27 extraordinarily high on a statistical basis.” Matter of Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th
28 Cir. 1984) (citing In re Int’l Business Machines Corp., 618 F.2d 923, 929-30 (2d Cir. 1980); Botts v.
United States, 413 F.2d 41, 44 (9th Cir. 1969)).