Christopher G. Valencia v. Gary S. Austin, Medina, et al.

E.D. California

Christopher G. Valencia v. Gary S. Austin, Medina, et al.

DecidedOctober 16, 2025

Docket1:22-cv-00569

StatusUnknown

This text of Christopher G. Valencia v. Gary S. Austin, Medina, et al. (Christopher G. Valencia v. Gary S. Austin, Medina, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christopher G. Valencia v. Gary S. Austin, Medina, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER G. VALENCIA, No. 1:22-cv-00569-JLT-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 v. GARY S. AUSTIN 14 MEDINA, et al., (ECF No. 27)

15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Gary S. 19 Austin, filed October 10, 2025. (ECF No. 27.) 20 As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s motion is moot as this case was reassigned to Magistrate 21 Judge Stanley A. Boone on October 2, 2025, due to equitable and economical determination of 22 court business. (ECF No. 26.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied on the merits. 23 Plaintiff’s seeks disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, 24 a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be 25 questioned,” including under circumstances where “he has a personal bias or prejudice 26 concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1)). 27 /// 28 1 In this instance, Plaintiff has failed to offer a sufficient affidavit specifically alleging facts 2 | to support the contention that Magistrate Judge Austin was bias or prejudiced towards him or his 3 | case. Plaintiff has not supported his motion with any evidence that the Magistrate Judge had a 4 | personal bias against Plaintiff from an extra-judicial source. A judge’s rulings while presiding 5 || over acase do not constitute extra-judicial conduct. Focus Media, Inc. v. NBC, 378 F.3d 916, 930 6 | (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs motion is based solely on his disagreement with the court’s rulings 7 | which is not a legitimate ground for seeking disqualification of a judge. 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for disqualification of Magistrate Judge Gary A. Austin is 9 | DENIED for the reasons stated. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 12 | Dated: _ October 16, 2025 _ Oe STANLEY A. BOONE 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER G. VALENCIA, No. 1:22-cv-00569-JLT-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 v. GARY S. AUSTIN 14 MEDINA, et al., (ECF No. 27)

15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 18 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Gary S. 19 Austin, filed October 10, 2025. (ECF No. 27.) 20 As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s motion is moot as this case was reassigned to Magistrate 21 Judge Stanley A. Boone on October 2, 2025, due to equitable and economical determination of 22 court business. (ECF No. 26.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s motion must be denied on the merits. 23 Plaintiff’s seeks disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, 24 a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be 25 questioned,” including under circumstances where “he has a personal bias or prejudice 26 concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1)). 27 /// 28 1 In this instance, Plaintiff has failed to offer a sufficient affidavit specifically alleging facts 2 | to support the contention that Magistrate Judge Austin was bias or prejudiced towards him or his 3 | case. Plaintiff has not supported his motion with any evidence that the Magistrate Judge had a 4 | personal bias against Plaintiff from an extra-judicial source. A judge’s rulings while presiding 5 || over acase do not constitute extra-judicial conduct. Focus Media, Inc. v. NBC, 378 F.3d 916, 930 6 | (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs motion is based solely on his disagreement with the court’s rulings 7 | which is not a legitimate ground for seeking disqualification of a judge. 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for disqualification of Magistrate Judge Gary A. Austin is 9 | DENIED for the reasons stated. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 12 | Dated: _ October 16, 2025 _ Oe STANLEY A. BOONE 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Christopher G. Valencia v. Gary S. Austin, Medina, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-g-valencia-v-gary-s-austin-medina-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack