“judicial rulings alone almost 20 never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”
How later courts described this case
- “judicial rulings alone almost 20 never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION
9
10 Case No. CV 24-06476-MRA (AS)
CARL GORDON,
11
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
12 Plaintiff,
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMNEDATIONS OF
13 v.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14 GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of
15 the State of California,
et. al.,
16
17
Defendants.
18
19
20 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the
21 First Amended Complaint, all of the records herein, and the Report
22 and Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No.
23 97, the “Report”), Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
24 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 123, “Objections”), Plaintiff’s
25 notice of clerical error and notice to clerk, (Dkt. No. 100),
26 Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Objections (Dkt. No. 101,
27 “Reply”), and Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Declaration and Request for
28
1 §636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de
2 novo review of those portions of the Report to which Objections
3 were directed.
4
5 The Report recommends the dismissal of the First Amended
6 Complaint with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 97.) Plaintiff’s objections
7 to the Report (Dkt. No. 98) do not merit any change to the Report’s
8 findings or recommendations.
9
10 Plaintiff objects that the Report made a series of
11 intentionally false claims. (Dkt. No. 98 at 6-9.) The objection
12 is wholly unfounded. The Report correctly found that Plaintiff
13 failed to cite relevant authority (Dkt. No. 97 at 40); that he
14 failed to establish a mootness exception (id. at 29); that his
15 official-capacity claims are barred by claim preclusion (id. at
16 18); that he failed to plausibly plead judicial misconduct or fraud
17 upon the court (id. at 23); that he failed to clearly specify a
18 financial benefit to Governor Newsom from SB-152 (id. at 13); and
19 that his requests for judicial notice were untimely and otherwise
20 improper (id. at 46 n.17).
21
22 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s legal findings regarding
23 Governor Newsom’s disqualification and the due process claim.
24 (Dkt. No. 98 at 9-12.) The Report addressed the substance of these
25 arguments, and Plaintiff fails to overcome the analysis. Plaintiff
26 failed to show that Governor Newsom’s alleged conflict of interest
27 was a “temporary disability” in carrying out his executive duties
28 during the recall election or that Plaintiff’s alleged federal due
1 process right in that election was clearly established. (Dkt. No.
2 97 at 38-39.)
3
4 Plaintiff objects to the Report’s findings on mootness and
5 claim preclusion. (Dkt. No. 98 at 12-14.) As the Report thoroughly
6 addressed, Plaintiff’s claims for prospective injunctive and
7 declaratory relief are moot, and his claim for damages is barred
8 by qualified immunity. (Dkt. No. 97 at 25-30, 35-45.) Plaintiff’s
9 claims against Defendants in their official capacity are barred by
10 claim preclusion because Plaintiff raised these challenges in Case
11 No. CV 21-7270-FMO (MAR). (Id. at 18-20.) Moreover, claim
12 preclusion “cannot be avoided by alleging new facts or new legal
13 theories[.]” (Id. at 21 (citing cases).) Plaintiff has failed to
14 overcome this analysis.
15
16 Plaintiff objects on the grounds of judicial bias and
17 partiality. (Dkt. No. 98 at 14-20.) The record does not support
18 Plaintiff’s contentions of judicial bias. See Liteky v. United
19 States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“judicial rulings alone almost
20 never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”).
21
22 Plaintiff requests judicial notice of exhibits from his
23 pending appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the
24 Ninth Circuit, in Case No. 25-561. (Dkt. No. 98 at 20-22.) As
25 the Magistrate Judge found, Plaintiff’s requests for judicial
26 notice were untimely in relation to the Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt.
27 No. 94 at 5.) Nonetheless, the contents of Plaintiff’s filings
28 were taken into account in assessing the merits of Plaintiff’s
1 |) claims and determining whether dismissal should be with or without
2 || leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 97 at 4 n.2.)
3
4 Having completed its review, the Court accepts the findings
5 || and recommendations set forth in the Report.
6
7 In sum, Plaintiff’s Objections do not cause the Court to
8 || reconsider its decision to accept the Magistrate Judge’s
9 || conclusions and recommendations.
10
11 IT IS ORDERED that (1) Defendants’ request for judicial notice
12 |} is GRANTED; (2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended
13 |} Complaint is GRANTED; and (3) Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
14 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
15
16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this
17 || Order and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on
18 |} Plaintiff.
19
50 DATED: July 31, 2025
21 | pe R Af ‘
22 ‘
ONICA RAMTREZ ALMADANT
23 UNETED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28