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-