Haney v. Woodruff

Filing 8

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/27/2017 DENYING 7 Motion for Disqualification; VACATING 5 Order; DIRECTING Clerk to randomly assign a U.S. District Judge to this action; and RECOMMENDING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP be denied. Assigned and referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with this findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONTE HANEY,

12

No. 2:17-cv-0860-EFB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

M. WOODRUFF,

15

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action under 42 U.S.C.

17
18

§ 1983. Plaintiff filed a written consent to have the case heard by the undersigned magistrate

19

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF No. 4. Thereafter, the undersigned denied plaintiff’s

20

request to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered him to pay the filing fee within 21 days. ECF

21

No. 5. Plaintiff responded by filing a motion asking that the undersigned be disqualified from the

22

case under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1) because “plaintiff has reason to believe that the judge is

23

prejudiced and biased concerning this case.” ECF No. 7 at 4. Plaintiff also moves to withdraw

24

his consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction.
As discussed below, the motion for recusal is denied. However, in light of a recent Ninth

25
26

Circuit decision, the order denying the application to proceed in forma pauperis is vacated and

27

replaced with findings and recommendations recommending that the application be denied.

28

/////
1

1
2

I.

Analysis
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) provides that a magistrate judge must disqualify himself from any

3

proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Subsection 455(b) provides

4

additional situations warranting disqualification, including “[w]here [the judge] has a personal

5

bias or prejudice concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Such bias or prejudice can almost

6

never be deduced from judicial rulings alone. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

7

Absent any other evidence of bias, an adverse ruling does not warrant disqualification. Potlatch

8

Corp. v. United States, 548 F. Supp. 155, 156 (N.D. Cal. 1982).

9

It is clear from plaintiff’s motion that his sole reason for seeking disqualification is his

10

disagreement with the order denying his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 7 at 2-6

11

(arguing that the determination that plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis was

12

wrong). Plaintiff presents no evidence that this ruling was the result of bias or prejudice against

13

him. Accordingly, disqualification is not warranted.

14

Plaintiff also indicates in the motion that he wishes to withdraw his consent to have the

15

case heard by the undersigned magistrate judge. Once a party waives his right to have his case

16

heard by an Article III judge by consenting to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, the court

17

may, in some circumstances, permit him to withdraw such consent. United States v. Neville, 985

18

F.2d 992, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 1993). The court considers these factors in deciding whether to

19

allow a party to withdraw consent: (1) the timeliness of the request; (2) whether granting the

20

request would unduly interfere with or delay the proceedings; and (3) whether the party’s consent

21

was voluntary and uncoerced. Id.

22

Plaintiff’s request to withdraw his consent has occurred early in the case and granting the

23

request would likely not cause a great deal of delay. However, plaintiff’s consent was freely

24

given – he filled out and returned the court’s standard form asking whether he consented to or

25

declined the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, and he does not indicate that he was under any

26

pressure to select “consent” over “decline.” ECF No. 4. It appears instead that plaintiff wishes to

27

withdraw his consent simply because the undersigned magistrate judge issued a ruling adverse to

28

him. This is not a valid basis upon which the court will allow plaintiff to withdraw his consent.
2

1

His remedy instead is to challenge the adverse ruling on appeal. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555

2

(stating that adverse rulings are proper grounds for appeal, not recusal). Accordingly, plaintiff’s

3

request to withdraw his consent will be denied.

4

However, defendants have not yet been served and, necessarily, have not yet consented to

5

proceed before a magistrate judge. An intervening ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,

6

held that a magistrate judge lacks jurisdiction to enter dispositive orders until all named parties,

7

even those unserved, have consented. Williams v. King, __ F.3d __, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS

8

22537 (9th Cir. Nov. 8, 2017) (“28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) requires the consent of all plaintiffs and

9

defendants named in the complaint—irrespective of service of process—before jurisdiction may

10

vest in a magistrate judge to hear and decide a civil case that a district court would otherwise

11

hear.”). Thus, Williams requires that the earlier order denying plaintiff’s request to proceed in

12

forma pauperis be vacated and replaced with findings a recommendation. Nonetheless, the

13

analysis contained in that order remains valid and for the same reasons the undersigned

14

recommends that the district judge deny plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. That

15

analysis is restated below for the convenience of the court and parties.

16

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) permits any court of the United States

17

to authorize the commencement and prosecution of any suit without prepayment of fees by a

18

person who submits an affidavit indicating that the person is unable to pay such fees. However,

19

[i]n no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the
United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.

20
21
22
23
24

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court takes judicial notice1 of the following lawsuits previously filed

25

by plaintiff:

26
27
28

1

Judicial notice may be taken of court records. Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80
F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126
(1981).
3

1

Haney v. Bondoc, et al., 1:07-cv-01222 GMS (E.D. Cal. Jul. 22,
2007), dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. Id., ECF Nos. 16,17.

2
3

Haney v. Hernandez, et al., 1:10-cv-02134 LJO BAM (E.D. Cal.
Nov. 6, 2012), dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Id., ECF No. 47.

4
5

Haney v. Braswell, et al., 1:10-cv-01140 LJO GSA (E.D. Cal. Mar.
25, 2013), dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. Id., ECF No. 10.

6
7

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis in this

8

action unless plaintiff is “under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. §

9

1915(g). To meet the exception, plaintiff must allege facts that demonstrate that he was “under

10

imminent danger of serious physical injury” at the time of filing the complaint. Andrews v.

11

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that “it is the circumstances at the time

12

of the filing of the complaint that matters for purposes of the ‘imminent danger’ exception under

13

§ 1915(g).”).

14

Plaintiff alleges that defendant used excessive force against him on April 27, 2016 by

15

closing a cell door on his arm. ECF No. 1 at 4-5. This claim does not meet the imminent danger

16

exception because it occurred nearly one year before this action was filed. See Lewis v. Sullivan,

17

279 F.3d 526, 531 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that the imminent danger exception applies “[w]hen a

18

threat or prison condition is real and proximate . . . .”). And, crucially, plaintiff does not allege

19

that defendant has actually used excessive force against him since that date. The only other

20

concrete allegation made against defendant in the complaint is that, on November 18, 2016,

21

defendant threatened to assault plaintiff with a baton. ECF No. 1 at 6. This alleged threat

22

precedes this suit by several months and plaintiff does not allege that defendant ever made good

23

on it. Accordingly, plaintiff has not brought allegations which, taken as true, demonstrate that he

24

is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

25

The undersigned finds that plaintiff has not made the requisite showing of “imminent

26

danger” to qualify for an exception to the “three strikes” bar under 1915(g) and will therefore

27

recommend that the court deny plaintiff in forma pauperis status and require him to pay the full

28

filing fee in order to proceed with this action.
4

1
2

II.

Order and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that:

3

1. Plaintiff’s October 23, 2017 motion for disqualification (ECF No. 7) is DENIED.

4

2. The order of October 3, 2017 (ECF No. 5) is VACATED.

5

3. The Clerk is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.

6
7

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 2) be DENIED.

8

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

9

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

10

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

11

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

12

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

13

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

14

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

15

DATED: November 27, 2017.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5