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