Michael Gates v. Lonnie D. Jackson, Jr.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 17, 2022
• Docket: 2:14-cv-00904
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2{14-cv-00904-DDP-JC Document 159 Filed 11/17/22 Page1of3 Page ID #:1298 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MICHAEL GATES, ) Case No. 2-14-cv-00904-JCx 10 . ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 1 ) MOTION TO DISQUALIFY 12 v. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) 13 LONNIE D. JACKSON, JR., ET. AL., ) 14 ) Defendants. ) 15 ) 16 ) ) 17 ) 18 19 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion to disqualify Magistrate 20 || Judge Chooljian. Based on the materials submitted and the issues raised therein, the court 21 denies the motion and adopts the following Order. 22 23 A judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality 24 || might reasonably be questioned” and in proceedings in which “he has a personal bias or 25 prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts 26 97 || concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) & (b)(1). The Ninth Circuit has addressed 28 || the standard for disqualification under § 455, writing:

Case 2(14-cv-00904-DDP-JC Document 159 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2of3 Page ID #:1299

1 The test under § 455(a) is “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s 2 impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” [] 3 Typically, a judge’s partiality must be shown to be based on information from extrajudicial sources, although sometimes, albeit rarely, predispositions 4 developed during the course of a trial will suffice. [] In the instance where the 5 partiality develops during the course of the proceedings, it can be the basis of recusal only when the judge displays a deep-seated and unequivocal 6 antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible. F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1144-45 (9th Cir. g || 2001) (citations omitted). 10 Plaintiff accuses Judge Chooljian of (1) failing to timely rule on Plaintiff's motions 11 while ruling more quickly on Defendants’ motions, including, in one instance, within one 12 13 || day; (2) granting an ex parte motion improperly; and (3) demonstrating prejudice by 14 recommending a judgment on the pleadings in Defendants’ favor that was later reversed 15 by the Ninth Circuit. Further, Plaintiff notes that he never consented to Judge Chooljian’s 16 17 || presiding over his case. 18 That Plaintiff did not, and does not, consent to Judge Chooljian’s presiding over 19 30 his case does not deprive her of authority to preside over his case. Plaintiff's non-consent

21 || only impacts Judge Chooljian’s ability to order judgment in the case. General Order No. 22 05-07; 28 U.S.C. §636(c)(3) (“The consent of the parties allows a magistrate judge...to 23 54 direct the entry of a [final, appealable] judgment.”); see also Roell v. Withrow, 538 U.S.

25 || 580, 586 (2003). Here, Judge Chooljian did not issue a final, appealable judgment, but 6 rather issued a Report and Recommendation to the undersigned. Dkt 140; Dkt 141. It was 27 28

Case 4(14-cv-00904-DDP-JC Document Filed 11/17/22 Page 3of3 Page ID #:1300

1 this Court’s order adopting the Report and Recommendation that Mr. Gates appealed to 2 || the Ninth Circuit. Thus, although the court acknowledges Plaintiff’s right to refuse to consent to Judge Chooljian’s authority to enter a final judgment, such authority was not 5 exercised in this case. 6 As for the evidence of possible bias, “[a] judge’s views on legal issues may not serve as the basis for motions to disqualify.” United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 882 g || (9th Cir. 1980); see also United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1560 (9th Cir. 1996). The 10 || proper avenue for Plaintiff to challenge the grant of judgment on the pleadings and the 11 grant of Defendants’ ex parte motion was to await the District court’s ruling, then file an 12 13 || appeal, as Mr. Gates did. Nor did Judge Chooljian fail to timely rule on Plaintiff's motion. 14 || motion, Dkt. 98. 15 For these reasons, there is no reasonable basis to question Judge Chooljian’s 16 17 || impartiality. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify is DENIED. 18 19 20 >1 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 Dated: November 17, 2022 Hon. Dean D. Pregerson 25 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28