Brittain,et al v. Twitter Incorporated

Filing 18

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion to for Change of Judge. See document for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 10/5/18. (MSA)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Craig R Brittain, et al., No. CV18-01714-PHX-DGC Plaintiffs, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Twitter Incorporated, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff has filed a motion for change of judge. Doc. 16. Plaintiff asserts that the 16 motion is “due to the absence/inactivity of current Judge David G. Campbell.” Doc. 16. 17 Plaintiff asserts that “this motion has been filed due to the lack of response to pending 18 time-sensitive motions by Plaintiff as well as the lack of scheduled proceedings in the 19 case.” Id. at 2. 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Background. This case was filed on June 5, 2018, and was randomly assigned to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade. Doc. 4. On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff requested random reassignment (Doc. 9), and the case was reassigned to the undersigned judge on June 20, 2018. On June 22, 2018, this Court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, denying Plaintiff’s motion to allow electronic 26 27 28 filing, and allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 12. 1 On June 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (Doc. 13), and on 2 July 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Doc. 14. A review of 3 the Court’s docket shows that Plaintiff has not yet served Defendant with the summons, 4 amended complaint, notice to the parties regarding the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot, 5 and motion for preliminary injunction. On September 28, 2018, the Court entered an 6 order advising Plaintiff that the docket did not reflect proper service (the deadline for 7 which passed on September 5, 2018) and extended the time to serve Defendant to 8 November 27, 2018. Doc. 17. The Court cannot proceed with the case until Plaintiff 9 properly serves Defendant with the required documents. 10 B. 11 12 13 14 15 Recusal. Two statutes govern recusal of district judges: 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section 144 applies when a party believes that the district judge “has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 144. “Section 144 expressly conditions relief upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient affidavit.” United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). Because Plaintiff has 16 17 submitted no affidavit, his request for recusal may not be granted under section 144. Section 455 provides that a district judge “shall disqualify” himself in any 18 19 20 21 22 proceeding in which his “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Plaintiff seems to be alleging that the Court is responsible for the lack of progress in this case, but it is Plaintiff who has not complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by properly serving Defendant with the required documents. Recusal is 23 not appropriate under section 455. 24 C. Warnings. 25 As noted in previous orders (Docs. 12, 17), Plaintiff must become familiar with, 26 and follow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of the United States 27 District Court for the District of Arizona (“Local Rules”), which may be obtained in the 28 Clerk of Court’s office. -2- 1 If Plaintiff fails to prosecute this action or to comply with the rules or any Court 2 order, the Court may dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 3 Procedure 41(b). 4 (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se 5 plaintiff’s complaint for failing to comply with a court order). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) 6 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for change of judge (Doc. 16) is denied. 7 Dated this 5th day of October, 2018. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?