Imamoto v. Helping Hands of Hawaii et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REQUEST REASSIGNMENT OF CASE re 6 ; 9 . Signed by JUDGE ALAN C KAY on 10/14/11. (eps)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications will be served by first class mail on October 17, 2011

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
WILLARD MAX IMAMOTO,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
HELPING HANDS OF HAWAII, ET
AL,
Defendant(s).
_____________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 11-00551 ACK-RLP

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
REQUEST REASSIGNMENT OF CASE
BACKGROUND
On September 12, 2011, Plaintiff Willard Max Imamoto
(“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, filed a complaint and an
application to proceed without prepayment of fees.

Doc. Nos. 1,

4.
On September 16, 2011, Magistrate Judge Puglisi issued
a “Findings and Recommendation that Plaintiff’s Application to
Proceed without Prepayment of Fees Be Denied” (“F&R”).
6.

Doc. No.

In the F&R, Judge Puglisi recognized that this Court must

subject Plaintiff’s action, which was commenced under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1915, to mandatory screening and order the dismissal of any
claim that it determines is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Doc. No. 6, 3;

Magistrate Judge Puglisi found

that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted, is frivolous, and does not comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Doc. No. 6, 3-6.

Specifically,

Magistrate Judge Puglisi found that Plaintiff’s complaint, which
contains 259 pages and 5 exhibits, “is written in a disorganized
and confusing manner,” and that the “lack of clarity prevents the
Court from identifying any judicially cognizable claims.”
5.

Id. at

Magistrate Judge Puglisi recommended denying Plaintiff’s

application to proceed without prepayment of fees and recommended
that Plaintiff be given thirty days from the date of the F&R to
submit a first amended complaint.

Id. at 7-8.

On September 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint, an application to proceed without prepayment of fees,
and a “Non Hearing Motion Request Pursuant [sic] 28 U.S.C.
636(c)(2) Of Reassignment To United States District Judge”
(“Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Reassignment of Case”).1
Nos. 7-9.

Doc.

This Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as objecting

to the F&R, inter alia, because of Magistrate Judge Puglisi’s
alleged bias.

See Doc. No. 9.

Plaintiff’s assertion of bias is

based on the statement in a footnote of the F&R that “the instant
lawsuit appears to be highly duplicative of actions that
Plaintiff unsuccessfully pursued in both this federal court and
in Hawaii state court.”

See Doc. No. 6, 6 n.2.

1

This Order does not affect Plaintiff’s first amended
complaint or second application to proceed without prepayment of
fees. See Doc. Nos. 7-8.
2

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Local Rule 74.1, any party may appeal from
a magistrate judge's order determining a non-dispositive pretrial
matter or, if a reconsideration order has issued, the magistrate
judge's reconsideration order on such a matter.

The district

judge shall consider the appeal and shall set aside any portion
of the magistrate judge's order found to be clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.

See D. Haw. Local Rule 74.1; see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

The district judge may

also reconsider sua sponte any matter determined by a magistrate
judge.

See D. Haw. Local Rule 74.1.

“The clearly erroneous

standard applies to the magistrate judge's factual findings while
the contrary to law standard applies to the magistrate judge's
legal conclusions, which are reviewed de novo.”

Columbia

Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443, 446 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
Under the “clearly erroneous” standard, the magistrate judge's
ruling must be accepted unless, after reviewing the entire
record, this Court is “left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.”

United States v. Silverman,

861 F.2d 571, 576-77 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotations
omitted).

The district judge may not simply substitute his or

her judgment for that of the magistrate judge.

See Grimes v.

City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 1991).
“A decision is contrary to law if it applies an incorrect legal

3

standard or fails to consider an element of the applicable
standard.”

Na Pali Haweo Cmty. Ass'n v. Grande, 252 F.R.D. 672,

674 (D. Haw. 2008) (internal quotations omitted).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff objects to the F&R based on Magistrate Judge
Puglisi’s alleged bias and seeks reassignment of his case.
Plaintiff cites 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2) in his motion as authority
for “reassignment.”

Pursuant to § 636(c)(1), parties may consent

to have a magistrate judge conduct “any or all proceedings in a
jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in
the case.”

Under § 636(c)(2), if a magistrate judge is

designated to exercise civil jurisdiction under § 636(c)(1), the
parties may withhold consent without adverse substantive
consequences.

This case is already assigned to the undersigned

judge, who has referred certain pretrial matters to Magistrate
Judge Puglisi pursuant to § 636(b).

Magistrate Judge Puglisi is

not exercising jurisdiction over this case pursuant to
§ 636(c)(1), and thus § 636(c)(2) is inapplicable.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to disqualify Magistrate
Judge Puglisi based on an alleged bias, Plaintiff’s argument is
inadequate.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, a judge must

recuse himself in any proceeding in which the judge’s
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

In considering a

disqualification motion, the Court applies an objective test:

4

“whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts
would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.”

Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of

Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (internal
quotations omitted).
“‘[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a
valid basis for a bias or partiality motion,’” and “‘opinions
formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events
occurring in the course of the current proceedings . . . do not
constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they
display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make
fair judgment impossible.’”

Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038,

1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.
540, 555 (1994).

Instead, “the alleged bias must usually stem

from an extrajudicial source.”

Id. at 1043-44.

Plaintiff has not pointed to an extrajudicial source of
bias; rather, his allegation is based on the statement in a
footnote of the F&R that Plaintiff’s suit “appears to be highly
duplicative” of other actions that Plaintiff has unsuccessfully
pursued.

See Doc. No. 9, 4; Doc. No. 6, 6 n.2.

Plaintiff

brought some of his prior actions to the Court’s attention in his
complaint.

Doc. No. 1, 12-13.

Magistrate Judge Puglisi’s

statement in no way displays “a deep-seated favoritism or
antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible,” and a

5

reasonable person would not question his impartiality.
Consequently, Plaintiff’s assertion of bias is insufficient.

See

Pesnell, 543 F.3d at 1044.
This Court agrees with the F&R that Plaintiff’s
complaint filed on September 12, 2011, fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted, is frivolous, and does not comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 for the reasons stated
therein.

It is therefore proper to deny Plaintiff’s first

application to proceed without prepayment of fees and allow him
to file an amended complaint.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);

Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust, 821 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th
Cir. 1987).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts Magistrate
Judge Puglisi’s F&R as the opinion and order of this court and
denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Reassignment of Case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai’i, October 14, 2011.

________________________________
Alan C. Kay
Sr. United States District Judge

6

Imamoto v. Helping Hands of Hawaii, et al., Civ. No. 11-00551 ACK-RLP: Order
Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation and Denying
Plaintiff’s Motion to Request Reassignment of Case.

7