Musgrove v. Hanifin

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 15, 2023
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00614
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Irvin Musgrove, Case No.: 20cv614-JO-BLM

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF 13 v. IRVIN MUSGROVE’S MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL 14 Hanifin et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 On December 7, 2022, December 13, 2022, and January 18, 2023, Plaintiff Irvin 21 Musgrove filed motions for recusal of the undersigned. Dkts. 214, 216, 217. Plaintiff 22 bases these motions on the Court’s dismissal of his claim: “Then you proceeded to team 23 with Atty [sic] Hamilton again by attacking the Unruh Civil Rights Act as one of my causes 24 of action, as you two determined that it wasn’t fitting for my case, when you both were 25 TOTALLY WRONG.” Dkt. 214 at 2; “In this case, only the Plaintiff’s case has been 26 wrongfully stripped of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which was a legitimate causes [sic] of 27 action that Judge Ohta wrongfully claimed was improper and the proper filing procedure 28 (which Judge Ohta took the defense Atty’s [sic] flawed expertise for as gospel, by 1 || wrongfully ruling” on Plaintiff's claim. Dkt. 216 at 3-4; “At the Hearing on 09/29/2022, 2 || JO [sic] made a ruling that I filed my case in the inappropriate place strictly on the word 3 the defense Atty [sic] Barbara Hamilton, when in fact, the Fair Housing & Equal 4 Opportunity (FHEO), which is under Housing & Urban Development (HUD) [sic]...She 5 ||[] removed the Unruh Civil Rights Act as one of my Causes of Action[.]” Dkt. 217 at 2. 6 The Supreme Court has recognized that due process confers the right to an impartial 7 || and disinterested judge. See Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980). A judge 8 should recuse herself when “the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally 9 tolerable.” Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975). 28 U.S.C. § 455 further instructs 10 a federal judge must recuse herself from any proceeding in which her “impartiality 11 might reasonably be questioned” or if she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 12 || party. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 455 “require recusal only if the 13 or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made 14 || during the course of the proceeding.” Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 15 || 1999) (quoting Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988)). 16 Plaintiff has not identified any grounds for a reasonable person to question the 17 || undersigned’s bias, personal prejudice, or partiality. Plaintiff's arguments for recusal hinge 18 ||solely on the Court’s adverse ruling, which is not sufficient to demonstrate that this judge 19 a bias or prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source. Because Plaintiff does not 20 || point to any facts that would lead one to reasonably question the undersigned’s impartiality, 21 motions for recusal [Dkts. 214, 216, 217] are DENIED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: February 14, 2023 24 25 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 26 United States District Judge 27 28