Hisle v. Conanon, et al.

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 57 Motion for Reconsideration of Magistrate Judge's Recusal Order signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/20/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DENNIS CURTIS HISLE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
MARLYN CONANON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No. 1:17-cv-01400-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S RECUSAL ORDER
[ECF No. 57]

Plaintiff Dennis Curtis Hisle is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s February 27, 2019

19
20

order denying Plaintiff’s motion for recusal, filed March 13, 2018. (ECF No. 57.) Although Plaintiff

21

did not title his objections as a “Request for Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate

22

Judge’s Ruling,” the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion for reconsideration of the

23

Magistrate Judge’s February 27, 2019, order denying the motion to recuse. See Local Rule 303(c).
In seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s order denying the motion to recuse,

24
25

Plaintiff must show that the Magistrate Judge’s decision was “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

26

Local Rule 303(f); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

27

///

28

///
1

1

A request for recusal or motion to disqualify falls under 28 U.S.C. § 144, which provides:

2

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and
sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias
or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed
no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

3
4
5

28 U.S.C. § 144; see also 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (A judge a required to recuse himself in any proceeding

6

which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned). Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must

7

recuse himself if a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that his

8

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir.

9

2011). The substantive test for personal bias or prejudice is identical under sections 144 and 455. See

10
11

United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980).
In this instance, Plaintiff has not shown that the Magistrate Judge’s decision denying his

12

motion for recusal was “clearly erroneous.” Plaintiff’s continued disagreement with the Magistrate

13

Judge’s orders is not sufficient to warrant recusal. Further, there is no evidence in the record of any

14

impropriety by the Magistrate Judge and Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge has

15

engaged in favoritism or antagonism to warrant recusal. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for

16

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s February 27, 2019, order is denied.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

March 20, 2019

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2