Cohea v. Pliler, et al

Filing 226

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/21/2013 ORDERING plaintiff's complaints against the undersigned in 225 Objections to Findings and Recommendations filed by Danny J. Cohea are construed as a Motion for Recusal and are DENIED. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DANNY JAMES COHEA,
Plaintiff,

11
12

No. 2:00-cv-2799 GEB EFB P

vs.

13

CHERYL K. PLILER, WARDEN, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 25, 2013, the undersigned filed findings and recommendations with

18

respect to defendants’ motions for summary judgment and to declare plaintiff a vexatious

19

litigant. Dckt. No. 224. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

20

Plaintiff’s 54-pages of objections are replete with accusations directed at the undersigned.

21

E.g., Dckt. No. 225 at 6 (magistrate judge is “conniving to deprive plaintiff’s federal

22

constitutional . . . and . . . statutory rights”), 12 (magistrate judge is conniving with defendants),

23

13 (magistrate judge should face civil and criminal liability for his conduct in this case, which

24

plaintiff intends to pursue), 13-14 (magistrate judge has acted with “mass corruption” and

25

plaintiff intends to file a Bivens action against him), 14 (magistrate judge has made false

26

statements to relieve defendants of liability), 46 (magistrate judge is a “vile man”). The court
1

1

construes the objections to contain a request to disqualify the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

2

§ 455. A judge should disqualify himself under that section where a reasonable person with

3

knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be

4

questioned. United States v. Winston, 613 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff’s complaints

5

against the undersigned in this case do not demonstrate personal bias or lack of impartiality. In

6

fact, the findings and recommendations include several recommendations in his favor. Plaintiff

7

offers no facts, other than that the undersigned has also made recommendations in favor of

8

defendants, that demonstrate bias.

9
10

Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaints against the undersigned contained in his March 11,
2013 objections (Dckt. No. 225) are construed as a motion for recusal and are DENIED.

11

So ordered.

12

DATED: March 21, 2013.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2