Orlonzo Hedrington v. County of Solano, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00414
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ORLONZO HEDRINGTON, No. 2:21-cv-00414-KJM-SCR 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 COUNTY OF SOLANO, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for recusal of the undersigned. ECF No. 95. 17 Judgment was entered in this action on December 15, 2021. ECF No. 42. Plaintiff filed several 18 motions for reconsideration and was cautioned “that any similar motions will be disregarded in 19 the future.” ECF No. 51. Plaintiff attempted to appeal in 2024, and the Ninth Circuit Court of 20 Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 89. Judge Mueller recently issued 21 an order denying a motion to reopen and stating: “The Clerk’s Office is instructed not to accept 22 any further documents for filing in this matter.” ECF No. 96. 23 The undersigned was assigned to this matter on November 17, 2025, when Plaintiff filed a 24 motion to reopen. See ECF Nos. 93 & 94. Plaintiff’s one-page motion for recusal sets forth no 25 valid basis for recusal. Plaintiff’s basis for recusal appears to be that he had a different case 26 before the undersigned in which he was unsuccessful. Plaintiff makes a conclusory assertion of 27 fraud, and states that in his prior cases there “seemed to be an element of closing me out even 28 before I get started.” ECF No. 95. 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a court applies the general rule that questions about a 2 || judge’s impartiality must stem from “extrajudicial” factors, that is, sources other than the judicial 3 || proceeding at hand. /d. (internal citations omitted). One factor which does not normally require 4 | recusal is an adverse prior ruling in the instant proceeding or another proceeding. /d. at 1178-79 5 || citing Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 351 (10th Cir. 1995). The undersigned has made no rulings 6 || in this matter, and Plaintiff's motion appears to be based on this Court's adverse prior rulings 7 || other matters. This is not cause for recusal. See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th 8 | Cir. 1986) (“a judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal”). 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for recusal (ECF No. 10 | 95) 1s DENIED. 11 | DATED: December 11, 2025.

8 SEAN C. RIORDAN 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28