(PC) Thomas v. Fry

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 OTIS MICHAEL THOMAS, No. 2:19-cv-01041 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14) 1.C. FRY, etal., 1S Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff has filed a second motion asking that the undersigned recuse. ECF No. 74. 20 | Recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455. District judges are statutorily obligated to recuse 21 | themselves if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or if they “have a personal bias 22 | or prejudice against a party.” United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566— 23 | 57 (9th Cir. 1995). However, judges must recuse “only if the bias or prejudice stems from an 24 | extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding.” 25 | Pau v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation 26 | omitted). Because plaintiff does not identify any adequate basis for recusal and because there is 27 | no basis to reasonably question the undersigned’s impartiality, plaintiff's motion is denied. 28 This order resolves ECF No. 74

2 DATED: March 30, 2023. 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4