Tagle v. Nouheim et al
Filing
39
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 38 Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 5/23/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
VICTOR TAGLE,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
JON NOUHEIM, et al.,
14
Defendant(s).
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:16-cv-00709-GMN-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
RECUSE
(Docket No. 38)
16
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to change magistrate judge. Docket No. 38. The
17
Court construes the motion as seeking recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. See
18
Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013) (courts construe pro se filings liberally). The
19
substantive standard for recusal under both Sections is the same: “whether a reasonable person with
20
knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
21
United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Studley, 783
22
F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986)). Ordinarily, any alleged bias must stem from an “extrajudicial source.”
23
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-56 (1994). “[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of
24
facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings,
25
do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favortism or
26
antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. at 555.
27
Without explanation or elaboration, Plaintiff asserts that the undersigned has exhibited bias based
28
on Plaintiff’s ethnic background and indigence. Docket No. 38 at 1. The undersigned has no personal
1
feelings of bias toward Plaintiff on any basis, let alone his ethnic background and/or indigence, and
2
Plaintiff has not pointed to any basis on which a reasonable observer could question whether such
3
impartiality exists.
4
Plaintiff also appears to argue that the undersigned is biased because two of the defendants are
5
“magistrates.” Id. It appears from Plaintiff’s complaint that two of the defendants are state judicial
6
officers. See Docket No. 1-1 at 5, 6. The undersigned does not know either person, has no feelings of
7
partiality related to either, and Plaintiff has not pointed to any basis on which a reasonable observer
8
could question the undersigned’s impartiality.
9
Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the attorney representing Defendants is a family member of someone
10
affiliated with the Court. Docket No. 38 at 1. Plaintiff does not identify that attorney (or family
11
member). No Defendant or attorney has appeared in this case, and the Court is not aware as to who will
12
represent Defendants in this case should it proceed.
13
The real crux of Plaintiff’s motion appears to be that he is unhappy with the report and
14
recommendation issued by the undersigned that this case should be dismissed. See id.1 Unhappiness
15
with a judge’s rulings is not ground for recusal. See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th
16
Cir. 1986) (“a judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal”). To the extent Plaintiff
17
disagrees with that report and recommendation, his remedy is to object to it (as he has already done).
18
Docket No. 10.
19
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for the undersigned to recuse is DENIED.
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
DATED: May 23, 2017
22
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
1
26
27
28
The motion references the undersigned dismissing multiple of Plaintiff’s cases without reason. Id.
The Court will take this opportunity to clarify the record. This is the only case brought by Plaintiff assigned
to the undersigned. As a magistrate judge, the undersigned has not dismissed this case, but rather
recommended that the assigned district judge dismiss the case. That report and recommendation provided
explicit reasoning and discussion of applicable legal authority. See Docket No. 8 at 2-4.
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?