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)

Download PDF
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?