Alvarez v. Morris Shea Bridge Company, Inc.
Filing
39
ORDER DENYING Second 37 Motion to Recuse signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/24/2024. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SERGIO ALVAREZ,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
No. 1:24-cv-00723 JLT BAM
ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO
RECUSE
v.
(Doc. 37)
MORRIS SHEA BRIDGE COMPANY,
Defendant.
16
17
Sergio Alvarez seeks damages against Morris-Shea Bridge Company, Inc. for alleged
18
retaliation. (See generally Doc. 1-3.) Morris-Shea removed the action from Fresno County
19
Superior Court based on diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 1.)
20
On August 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for recusal of the assigned judge. (Doc. 21.)
21
The magistrate judge construed that motion as a request to recuse herself and denied that motion.
22
(Doc. 23.) The magistrate judge reasoned:
23
24
25
26
27
28
A magistrate judge must disqualify herself if her “impartiality
might be reasonably,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if she “has a personal
bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. §
455(b)(1). “[J]udicial rulings or information acquired by the court
in its judicial capacity will rarely support recusal.” United States v.
Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). The objective test for
determining whether recusal is required is whether a reasonable
person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the
judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Johnson, 610
1
F.3d at 1147 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Adverse
findings do not equate to bias.” Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147.
1
2
***
3
Plaintiff’s statements are not sufficient to demonstrate personal bias
or prejudice by the undersigned. Plaintiff’s unspecified allegations
regarding the undersigned’s prejudice, with no explanation, cannot
support a finding that the undersigned holds any personal bias or
prejudice concerning Plaintiff or any other party. Plaintiff’s
assertions of prejudice or unfairness appear to be premised on
judicial rulings in this action. However, judicial rulings, in and of
themselves, do not constitute bias or partiality. See Johnson, 610
F.3d at 1147; Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555 (“[J]udicial rulings alone
almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality
motion.”). Plaintiff’s conclusory statements and allegations are
insufficient to establish that the undersigned’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned or to establish that a personal bias or
prejudice exists.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
(Doc. 23 at 2–3.) Plaintiff then filed a document titled “appeal” that renewed his request for a
12
different judge to be assigned to his case. (Doc. 24.) The Court interpreted this as a request under
13
Local Rule 303(c) for reconsideration, which was denied by written order issued October 2, 2024
14
(Doc. 25.)
15
On November 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed another request to change the assigned judge
16
because “she doesn’t want [any]one to tell her she is doing her job wrong.” (Doc. 37.) Though it
17
remains unclear which assigned judge(s) Plaintiff is challenging, the request is without merit, as it
18
again seeks recusal based only upon adverse judicial rulings. For this reason, the motion is
19
DENIED. Plaintiff is warned that further motions of this nature will be summarily denied or
20
disregarded. He is further warned that, even though he is proceeding pro se, multiplying the
21
proceedings by filing repetitive, meritless motions may be grounds for the imposition of
22
sanctions, which may include monetary, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions.
23
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 24, 2024
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?