McNeil v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
18
ORDER for supplemental briefing signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/14/2016. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HARLEY McNEIL,
15-cv-1442-AWI GSA
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING
Defendant.
17
18
19
On November 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request that the undersigned be disqualified “due
20
to a conflict of interest because of proceedings and judgments involving [Plaintiff’s] deceased
21
son, Levi Lingenfelter.” (Doc. 17). This is the only sentence Plaintiff articulated in support of
22
his motion.
23
The Court believes that the Plaintiff’s son may have been a party in a state court
24
proceeding that the undersigned presided over several years ago. Plaintiff is advised that a judge
25
must disqualify himself if “his impartiality might be reasonably questioned,@ 28 U.S.C. ' 455(a),
26
or if Ahe has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed
27
evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. ' 455(b)(1). “[J]udicial rulings or
28
information acquired by the court in its judicial capacity will rarely support recusal.” United
1
1
States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Litkey v. United States, 510 U.S.
2
540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)). The objective test for determining whether recusal is required
3
is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge=s
4
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147 (quotation marks and
5
citation omitted); Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038. 1043 (9th Cir. 2008). “Adverse findings
6
do not equate to bias,” and prior rulings in the proceeding, or another proceeding are ordinarily
7
insufficient to establish that recusal is required. Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147-1148. Thus,
8
Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s judicial rulings in a case does not constitute a valid basis
9
for a bias or partiality motion. In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing
10
11
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)).
Given the above, the fact that the undersigned presided over prior proceedings involving
12
the Plaintiff or his son is not by itself a basis for the Court’s recusal. However, given the limited
13
information in the motion, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to supplement his pleading
14
if he so desires. Plaintiff shall file any additional pleading no later than December 6, 2016.
15
Failure to file a supplemental brief may result in denial of this motion.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated:
November 14, 2016
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?