(PC) Bledsoe v. Leatuge et al

Filing 57

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/16/2020 DENYING 56 Motion to Recuse and DENYING 56 Renewed Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONNEL BLEDSOE, Sr.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:18-cv-2710 JAM KJN P

ORDER

SGT. MARTINEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action. The matter was

18

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

19

302. On September 30, 2020, plaintiff moved to recuse the undersigned magistrate judge

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. (ECF No. 56). As discussed below, plaintiff’s motion is denied.

21

I. Legal Standards

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Federal law provides that a party may seek recusal of a judge based on bias or prejudice.
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and
files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the
matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him
or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further
therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that
bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days
before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be
heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such
time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be
1

1

accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is
made in good faith.

2
3

28 U.S.C. § 144.
The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 is “‘whether a reasonable person with

4
5

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

6

questioned.’” Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v.

7

Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983)). To provide adequate grounds for recusal, the

8

prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source since a judge’s previous adverse ruling alone is

9

not sufficient for recusal. See id.
Section 144 expressly conditions relief upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient

10
11

affidavit. A judge who finds the affidavit legally sufficient must proceed no further under Section

12

144 and must assign a different judge to hear the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 144; United States v.

13

Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). Nevertheless, where the affidavit is not legally

14

sufficient, the judge at whom the motion is directed can determine the matter. See United States

15

v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d

16

1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that only after determining the legal sufficiency of a Section

17

144 affidavit is a judge obligated to reassign decision on merits to another judge)). If the affidavit

18

is legally insufficient, then recusal can be denied. See United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S.

19

Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995).

20

II. Discussion
Plaintiff’s motion for recusal in this case is substantively insufficient under Section 144

21
22

because it fails to allege facts that would support the contention that the undersigned has

23

exhibited bias or prejudice directed towards plaintiff from an extrajudicial source. See Sibla 624

24

F.2d at 868 (“An affidavit filed pursuant to [Section 144] is not legally sufficient unless it

25

specifically alleges facts that fairly support the contention that the judge exhibits bias or prejudice

26

directed toward a party that stems from an extrajudicial source.”). The motion alleges bias and

27

prejudice based on rulings and an alleged failure to review exhibits in cases not even assigned to

28

////
2

1

the undersigned.1 (ECF No. 56 at 1-2, 5.) Plaintiff objects that the undersigned “tried to throw”

2

plaintiff’s case against the Stockton Police Department based on the expiration of the statute of

3

limitations. (ECF No. 56 at 2.) However, plaintiff’s only case assigned to the undersigned is the

4

instant action, which plaintiff filed against defendants at the San Joaquin County Jail, not the

5

Stockton Police Department. Moreover, none of the rulings issued in this action addressed statute

6

of limitations issues. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 8, 12, 15, 19, 24 & 29.) Finally, plaintiff objects to the

7

denial of his request for appointment of counsel by the undersigned (ECF No. 52) because

8

plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges he has a 1% chance of winning and needs counsel for

9

depositions and to subpoena witnesses. (ECF No. 56 at 3.)

10

The issues raised by plaintiff in his motion for recusal are not proper grounds to disqualify

11

a judge for bias and prejudice. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, “judicial rulings

12

alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United

13

States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Instead, the judicial rulings are a basis for appeal, not recusal.

14

See id. (“In and of themselves . . . [judicial rulings] cannot possibly show reliance upon an

15

extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or

16

antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, they are

17

proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”); Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir.

18

1999) (“Leslie’s allegations stem entirely from the district judge’s adverse rulings. That is not an

19

adequate basis for recusal.”) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel is denied for the reasons set forth

20
21

in the court’s prior orders. (ECF Nos. 47, 52.)

22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1. Plaintiff’s motion to recuse the undersigned (ECF No. 56) is denied; and

24

////

25

1

26
27
28

Plaintiff references cases against CBS and Facebook, and states that he believes the
undersigned took a bribe from CBS, Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and San Joaquin County. (ECF
No. 56 at 1-2, 3.) However, Bledsoe v. Facebook, No. 18-2756 JAM EFB (E.D. Cal.) and
Bledsoe v. CBS, No. 2:18-3043 JAM EFB were assigned to a different magistrate judge. Bledsoe
v. Granberry, No. 2:19-1648 JAM DB (E.D. Cal.), another copyright infringement case brought
by plaintiff, was also assigned to a different magistrate judge, and remains pending. The court
dockets for these three cases confirm that the undersigned issued no rulings therein.
3

1
2

2. Plaintiff’s renewed motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 56) is denied.
Dated: October 16, 2020

3
4
/bled2710.rec2

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4