Alvarez v. Morris Shea Bridge Company, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 SERGIO ALVAREZ, No. 1:24-cv-00723 JLT BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE 13 v. JUDGE’S ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE (Doc. 24) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Sergio Alvarez seeks damages against Morris-Shea Bridge Company, Inc. for alleged 18 retaliation. (See generally Doc. 1-3.) Morris-Shea removed the action from Fresno County 19 Superior Court based on diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff objected to removal. (Doc. 7.) 20 Morris-Shea filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 12(b)(6). (Doc. 8.) The Court referred the motion to the Magistrate Judge for preparation of 22 findings and recommendations. (Doc. 9.) 23 The Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that recommended that: (1) 24 Plaintiff’s objections to removal be overruled and, as construed, Plaintiff’s motion for remand be 25 denied, (2) Morris-Shea’s motion to dismiss be granted, and (3) Plaintiff’s Complaint be 26 dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. (Doc. 15.) The Court adopted the Findings 27 and Recommendations, overruled Plaintiff’s objections to removal, denied Plaintiff’s motion to 28 remand, granted Morris Shea’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without 1 prejudice and with leave to amend. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff timely filed his First Amended Complaint. 2 (Doc. 20.) 3 Plaintiff then filed a motion for recusal of the judge. (Doc. 21.) The magistrate judge 4 construed that motion as a request to recuse herself and denied that motion. (Doc. 23.) The 5 magistrate judge reasoned: 6 A magistrate judge must disqualify herself if her “impartiality might be reasonably,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if she “has a personal 7 bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 8 455(b)(1). “[J]udicial rulings or information acquired by the court in its judicial capacity will rarely support recusal.” United States v. 9 Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). The objective test for 10 determining whether recusal is required is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the 11 judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Adverse 12 findings do not equate to bias.” Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147. 13 *** 14 Plaintiff’s statements are not sufficient to demonstrate personal bias or prejudice by the undersigned. Plaintiff’s unspecified allegations 15 regarding the undersigned’s prejudice, with no explanation, cannot support a finding that the undersigned holds any personal bias or 16 prejudice concerning Plaintiff or any other party. Plaintiff’s assertions of prejudice or unfairness appear to be premised on 17 judicial rulings in this action. However, judicial rulings, in and of themselves, do not constitute bias or partiality. See Johnson, 610 18 F.3d at 1147; Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555 (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality 19 motion.”). Plaintiff’s conclusory statements and allegations are insufficient to establish that the undersigned’s impartiality might 20 reasonably be questioned or to establish that a personal bias or prejudice exists. 21 22 (Doc. 23 at 2–3.) 23 Plaintiff then filed a document titled “appeal” that renewed his request for a different 24 judge to be assigned to his case. (Doc. 24.) The Court interprets this as a request under Local Rule 25 303(c) for reconsideration by the undersigned of the magistrate judge’s denial of the request for 26 recusal. To prevail on such a motion, Plaintiff must show that the magistrate judge’s decision was 27 “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Local Rule 303(f); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Latronica v. 28 Lynch, No. 1:16-CV-01352-LJO-SAB, 2016 WL 10654059, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2016). 1 | Plaintiff fails to meet this burden. The magistrate judge set forth the correct standards of law, 2 | including the rule that generally requires as a basis for recusal something other than the rulings of 3 | the challenged judge. Plaintiff has not pointed to any such basis. Thus, the request for 4 | reconsideration is DENIED. 5 7] Dated: _ October 2, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28