Hodge v. Best Buy Company of Minnesota Incorporated

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Najib A Hodge, No. CV-25-00112-PHX-MTL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Best Buy Company of Minnesota Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Najib Hodge’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) and 16 Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse (Doc. 9). 17 I. MOTION TO RECUSE 18 Plaintiff argues that the undersigned must recuse from this matter pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C § 455(a), which provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United 20 States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably 21 be questioned.” Plaintiff also asserts that recusal is required under 28 U.S.C § 455(b)(1), 22 which provides that the judge should disqualify himself if “he has a personal bias or 23 prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts 24 concerning the proceeding.” Plaintiff asserts that the undersigned has manifested partiality 25 and personal bias by misgendering and employing racist tactics. (Doc. 9 at 4.) 26 The statute requires recusal where “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the 27 facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Glick 28 v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 1 United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir.1986)). Plaintiff has not demonstrated 2 that a reasonable person would find bias warranting recusal. The references to Plaintiff as 3 a “she” in the March 12, 2025 Order were a clerical error. Plaintiff presents no evidence of 4 racial bias. Plaintiff fundamentally misunderstands the Court’s Orders. The Court has not 5 addressed the merits of Plaintiff’s antidiscrimination claims. Rather, the Court addresses 6 whether Plaintiff’s Complaint contained sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim 7 for relief. 8 II. AMENDED COMPLAINT 9 The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court 10 Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, and granted him leave 11 to file an Amended Complaint (Doc. 5). The Court, however, informed Plaintiff that if he 12 chose to file an amended complaint, it may not be served until and unless the Court 13 screened the new filing. (Id.) 14 The Court explained that Plaintiff failed to allege certain facts in its Complaint as 15 required by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Id. at 2-3.) The Court warned Plaintiff 16 that he must “write out exactly what the individual or entity did or failed to do, how the 17 action or interaction of that person and/or entity is connected to the violation of his rights, 18 and what specific injury he suffered because of the other person and/or entity’s conduct.” 19 (Id.) Plaintiff subsequently removed the Title II claim and repackaged similar facts as a 42 20 U.S.C. § 1981 claim. (Doc. 6 at 3.) Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts demonstrating 21 a connection to a violation of rights. As such, Plaintiff does not “state a claim to relief that 22 is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic 23 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 24 As Plaintiff has failed to cure the factual deficiencies identified by the Court’s 25 previous Order (Doc. 5), and because any future amendment would be futile, the Court will 26 dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint without prejudice. As such, the Court exercises 27 this authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff is advised that a dismissal without 28 prejudice means that a complaint asserting the same claims can be refiled. See Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505-06 (2001). 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse (Doc. 9). 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) without prejudice. 5 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss this || action and close this case. 7 Dated this 24th day of March, 2025. 8 ° Wichal T. Hburde 10 Michael T. Liburdi 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-