“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for 2 a bias or partiality motion.”
How later courts described this case
- “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for 2 a bias or partiality motion.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 NATHANAEL SMITH, Case No. 1:24-cv-00592-KES-BAM
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECUSAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13 v.
(Doc. 9)
14 GAVIN NEWSOME, et al,
15 Defendants.
16
17
On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff Nathanael Smith, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
18
filed his complaint against Defendants Gavin Newsome, Kevin Seibert, Hallie Campbell, David
19
Beyersdorf, Philip Pimentel, Anaiah Kirk, Ryan Campbell, Martin Huberty, Terry Woodrow,
20
Frank Axe, Gary Tofanelli, Jeff Brown, Veronica Roberts, Cassandra Jenecke, Nate Nutting,
21
Clint Parish, Oscar Martinez, Diego Martinez, Natalia Monaco, Stacy Spring, Sharon Sanders,
22
California Highway Patrol, Central Sierra Child Support Agency, Olivia Phillips, and July
23
Salkeld for alleged violations of his rights under the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth,
24
and Fourteenth Amendments and other federal statutes. (Doc. 1.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s
25
application to proceed in forma pauperis and advised Plaintiff that the Court is required to screen
26
complaints of pro se litigants proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant to Title 28 of the United
27
States Code section 1915(e)(2) and would screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due course. (Doc. 5.)
28
1 On May 28, 2024, Plaintiff subsequently filed a “motion to stay lower court orders” requesting
2 the Court stay state court orders. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a first amended complaint
3 and accompanying affidavit and writ of supersedeas on September 23, 2024. (Docs. 7-8.) On
4 October 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Disqualification. (Doc. 9.)
5 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification, in which Plaintiff
6 requests that the assigned magistrate judge recuse herself pursuant to U.S.C. § 455(a)-(b). (Doc.
7 9.) In his motion, Plaintiff contends that the delay in processing Plaintiff’s complaint and
8 requests to stay state court orders demonstrates improper bias and prejudice. (Id. at 2-3.)
9 A magistrate judge must disqualify herself if her “impartiality might reasonably be
10 questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if she “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or
11 personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. §
12 455(b)(1). “[J]udicial rulings or information acquired by the court in its judicial capacity will
13 rarely support recusal.” United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing
14 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). The objective test for determining whether
15 recusal is required is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude
16 that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147
17 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Adverse findings do not equate to bias.” Johnson, 610
18 F.3d at 1147.
19 Plaintiff is informed that a motion to disqualify a judge must be decided by the judge
20 whose impartiality is being questioned. In re Bernard, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing
21 United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 868, 868 (9th Cir. 1980)). As it appears Plaintiff seeks
22 disqualification of the assigned magistrate judge, the undersigned will address Plaintiff's motion.
23 Plaintiff's statements are not sufficient to demonstrate personal bias or prejudice by the
24 undersigned. Plaintiff's broad allegations regarding the undersigned's prejudice, with reference to
25 the lack of ruling on Plaintiff’s multiple filings, cannot support a finding that the undersigned
26 holds any personal bias or prejudice concerning Plaintiff or any other party. Plaintiff's assertions
27 of prejudice or unfairness appear to be premised on judicial rulings in this action. However,
28 judicial rulings, in and of themselves, do not constitute bias or partiality. See Johnson, 610 F.3d
1 at 1147; Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555 (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for
2 a bias or partiality motion.”) Plaintiff's conclusory statements and allegations are insufficient to
3 establish that the undersigned's impartiality might reasonably be questioned or to establish that a
4 personal bias or prejudice exists.
5 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for recusal of the magistrate judge (Doc. 9) is HEREBY
6 DENIED. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. 7) will be screened in due course.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9 Dated: March 14, 2025 /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