(PS) Favis v. Favis

Opinion

STEPHEN FAVIS, Case No. 2:25-cv-1083-TLN-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER Defendant. On May 9, 2025, I recommended that plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, observing that the amended complaint, like the original, neither stated a federal claim nor established diversity jurisdiction.1 ECF No. 5. Plaintiff has now filed a motion asking that I recuse from this case. ECF No. 6. The applicable recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455, provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A judge shall also disqualify himself or herself when the judge has “a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party . . . .” Id. § 455(b)(1). The standard for determining whether impartiality might be reasonably questioned is

1 The May 9 findings and recommendations remain pending. “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might be questioned.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.2d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff has not demonstrated any such basis for recusal. He explains that he believes that the undersigned is biased due to a purported refusal to apply the correct legal standard and prematurely recommending dismissal. Disagreement with unfavorable rulings is not a valid basis forrecusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (holding that judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a recusal motion based on bias or impartiality); United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (same). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for recusal, ECF No. 6, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ( 1 Ow — Dated: _ May 19, 2025 q———_ JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE