Chantel et al v. Mohave Electric Cooperative Incorporated et al
Filing
7
ORDER: Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint filed February 27, 2017 (Doc. 5 ) is dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Notice (Doc. 6 ) to the extent the Court treats it as a motion to recuse is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court terminate this matter and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 3/01/2017. (REK)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Dustin Roger Chantel, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
12
No. CV-17-08024-PCT-GMS
ORDER
v.
Mohave Electric Cooperative Incorporated,
et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
Pending before this Court are: Plaintiffs’ Notice to Respond and Amendanment
16
(sic) to Complaint which this Court elects to treat as a motion to recuse (Doc. 6), and
17
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. 5), which the Plaintiffs have submitted in Response
18
to the Court’s Order dismissing their previous complaint in this action (Doc. 4). The
19
Court rules on those motions as follows:
20
To the extent Plaintiffs’ Notice to Respond (Doc. 6) is intended to be a motion to
21
recuse the motion is denied.1 Plaintiff’s motion is based on this Court’s rulings either in
22
this case, or previous cases brought by Plaintiff involving the same subject matter. It thus
23
provides no justification for recusal. Disqualifying bias or prejudice must stem from
24
something other than “information and beliefs” the judge “acquired while acting in his or
25
her judicial capacity.” United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012)
26
(quoting United States v. Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 853 n.6 (9th Cir. 1982)); accord
27
1
28
It does not appear that Plaintiffs’ notice was brought pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 455
or 28 U.S.C. § 144 although the Plaintiffs do suggest that the Court’s actions demonstrate
bias in favor of criminal activity which they allege is being committed by the Defendants.
1
United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794, 799 (9th Cir. 2000). A judge’s adverse rulings
2
during the course of proceedings in which disqualification is sought, or in related
3
proceedings, do not constitute a valid basis for the judge’s disqualification. Liteky v.
4
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1995); In re Marshall, 721 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir.
5
2013). Thus, Plaintiffs’ argument that this Court demonstrated bias when it referred to
6
Judge Logan’s reasoning for dismissing their previous action as frivolous is not a basis on
7
which they can seek to recuse this Court.
8
9
In any event, in its previous Order this Court ordered the Plaintiffs to set forth the
basis on which this Court had jurisdiction over their claims against Defendants.
This
10
Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and just because Plaintiffs may have a basis for
11
some claims based on state law against Defendants does not mean that they have a basis
12
for bringing such claims in this Court.
13
suggesting that either (1) their attempt to have their electricity reconnected, (2) their
14
claim for trespass against the cooperative, or (3) a claim for damages resulting from the
15
termination of their electrical service amounts to a claim based on federal law. They
16
have further failed to make allegations sufficient to suggest that they have diversity
17
jurisdiction over the Defendants.
Plaintiffs have failed to make allegations
18
Plaintiffs set forth, as the basis for their jurisdictional claim, the statute that
19
specifies that “the district court in which a case under title 11 (bankruptcy) is commenced
20
or is pending shall have exclusive jurisdiction” over the property of a bankruptcy estate.
21
Nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy action that involves the Defendants as debtors is over
22
and Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the
23
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This Court granted Plaintiffs’ in forma pauperis request
24
to bring such an appeal. Once Plaintiffs have completed their case in the bankruptcy
25
court and filed their appeal with the BAP, the BAP has jurisdiction of these issues.
26
28 U.S.C. § 158(c). This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear either their bankruptcy
27
appeal or further claims against the same Defendants for which there is no federal
28
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs in their Response acknowledge that they are raising these very
-2-
1
issues at the BAP (Doc. 6 at 3-4).
2
The Court has previously explained this to Plaintiffs and invited them to submit an
3
amended complaint making appropriate allegations that would suggest that this Court has
4
jurisdiction to hear this matter. See (Doc. 4). Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails to
5
plausibly allege a basis on which this Court would have jurisdiction over their claims. In
6
fact it is nearly identical to the previously dismissed complaint.
7
discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously
8
amended the complaint.”
9
Reservation, N.D. & S.D. v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting
10
Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Moore v.
11
Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Leave to amend need
12
not be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.”). Plaintiffs’ Amended
13
Complaint is therefore dismissed without leave to amend.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of Lake Traverse Indian
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint filed
February 27, 2017 (Doc. 5) is dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Notice (Doc. 6) to the extent the
Court treats it as a motion to recuse is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court terminate this matter and
enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 1st day of March, 2017.
21
22
23
“The district court’s
Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge
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?