Georgio M. Ser v. SDCC Officer, et al.

Opinion

DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 * * * 3

GEORGIO M. SER, Case No. 3:26-CV-00289-ART-CLB 4

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 5 DISQUALIFY v. 6 [ECF Nos. 4, 8] SDCC OFFICER, et al., 7 Defendants. 8

9 Before the Court are Plaintiff Georgio M. Ser’s motions to disqualify the 10 undersigned Magistrate Judge removed from this action. (ECF Nos. 4, 8). For the reasons 11 stated below, the motions are denied. 12 When reviewing a motion for recusal or disqualification, the Court must start from 13 the “general proposition” that the judicial officer must participate in cases assigned to him 14 or her. United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008). Recusal is governed 15 by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. The standard for recusal under Sections 144 and 455 is 16 “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the 17 judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 18 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, in order to satisfy either of these statutes, Ser must set 19 forth facts and reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists. 28 U.S.C. § 144. The 20 challenged judge should rule on the legal sufficiency of a recusal motion in the first 21 instance. Id. at 939. 22 Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a magistrate judge “shall disqualify [her]self in any 23 proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. 24 Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 2000). Section 455(a) requires an objective inquiry. 25 Holland, 519 at F.3d at 912-14. As a rule, the judge’s impartiality must be inferred from 26 “extrajudicial” sources—sources other than rulings and conduct during the proceeding. 27 Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 4 | recusal.” United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 893 (9th Cir. 2012). In addition, 2| “[rlumor, speculation, beliefs, conclusions, innuendo, suspicion, opinion, and similar non- factual matters” are insufficient to require Section 455 recusal. /d. 4 Here, Ser argues the undersigned should be disqualified in this case based entirely on his dissatisfaction with the undersigned’s determination in a prior case that he was not entitled to social security benefits. (ECF No 4 at 1, ECF No. 8 at 1.) In support of his 7 | arguments, Ser claims that the undersigned failed to read or consider his filings in 8 | reaching its decision in the prior case. (/d.) 9 First, these assertions are improperly based on Ser’s own speculation or 10) suspicions and have no basis in fact. McTiernan, 695 F.3d at 893. Furthermore, as noted above, a judge’s prior adverse rulings are not a sufficient basis to support recusal. 142) McTiernan, 695 F.3d at 893. Rather, recusal or disqualification must be based on extrajudicial conduct and cannot be based on mere speculation or suspicions. Ser has 44 presented no argument that the undersigned has engaged in any type of extrajudicial conduct that establishes any bias against Ser. (See ECF Nos. 4, 8.) As such, Ser has not shown “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the 17 | judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Studley, 783 F.2d at 939. 18 For the above reasons, Ser’s motions for recusal, (ECF Nos. 4, 8) are DENIED. 20 DATED: June 18, 2026.

22 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28