Ronald Young v. Sisodia et al

Filing 59

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 55 Motion for Recusal of Chief Judge O'Neill and Motions for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 09/28/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
RONALD YOUNG,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14

Case No. 1:15-cv-00640-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECUSAL OF CHIEF JUDGE O’NEILL
AND MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF NOS. 55 & 56)

C. SISODIA,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19

Ronald Young (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

20

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case is now proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second

21

Amended Complaint against defendant C. Sisodia. (ECF Nos. 19, 20, & 23).

22

On May 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default (ECF No. 33) and a motion

23

for default judgment (ECF No. 34). On May 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean issued

24

an order denying both motions. (ECF No. 35). On June 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed what the Court

25

construed as a motion for reconsideration by the assigned district judge. (ECF No. 37). The

26

motion for reconsideration was denied. (ECF No. 38).

27

On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for recusal of Chief Judge O’Neill, as

28

well as what the Court construes as motion(s) for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying
1

1

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration by the assigned district judge. (ECF Nos. 55 & 56).
Plaintiff’s motions will be denied.

2
3

I.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL

4

Plaintiff asks that the undersigned be recused “for unreasonable bias and prejudicial

5

misconduct and abuse of authority, by ruling against the 3/2/17 order directing service… Then

6

denying motion for entry of default….” (ECF No. 55, p. 4).

7

A judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be

8

questioned. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A judge shall also disqualify himself if he has “personal

9

knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). The

10

decision regarding disqualification is made by the judge whose impartiality is at issue. Bernard v.

11

Coyne, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994). The Supreme Court has recognized that:

12
13
14
15
16

[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a
bias or partiality motion. In and of themselves (i.e., apart from
surrounding comments or accompanying opinion), they cannot
possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only
in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or
antagonism required… when no extrajudicial source is involved.
Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for
recusal.

17

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (citation omitted). “The test is ‘whether

18

a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality

19

might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 2000)

20

(quoting United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997)). “Frivolous and

21

improperly based suggestions that a judge recuse should be firmly declined.” Maier v. Orr, 758

22

F.2d 1578, 1583 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).

23

Here, Plaintiff is asking that the undersigned recuse himself because Plaintiff does not like

24

the undersigned’s ruling, and believes that the ruling shows that the undersigned is biased. As

25

described above, this is almost never grounds for recusal, and the undersigned sees no reason to

26

deviate from the general rule here. The undersigned has reviewed the record, and there is no

27

evidence of any impropriety.

28

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for recusal will be denied.
2

1

II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION(S) FOR RECONSIDERATION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs grounds for relief from an order:

2

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a
new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Notably, “[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable

11

time--and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order

12

or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

13

As to Rule 60(b)(6), Plaintiff “must demonstrate both injury and circumstances beyond his

14

control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in a proper fashion.” Harvest v.

15

Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted).

16

Additionally, Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest

17

injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from

18

taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” (Id.) (internal quotations

19

marks and citation omitted).

20

Plaintiff’s motion(s) for reconsideration will be denied. Plaintiff has failed to show that

21

he meets any of the above-mentioned reasons for granting relief from the order denying his

22

motion for reconsideration by the assigned district judge. Plaintiff alleges no new facts or

23

evidence, and the Court’s prior ruling is legally correct.

24

III.

ORDER

25

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

26

1. Plaintiff’s motion for recusal of Chief Judge O’Neill is DENIED; and

27

///

28

///
3

1
2

2. Plaintiff’s motion(s) for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration by the assigned district judge is DENIED.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

September 28, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4