(PS) Rogers v. County of Sacramento

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAULA CARRIE ROGERS,

12 Plaintiff, No. 2:24-cv-00475-TLN-CKD

13 14 v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 15 Defendants, 16

17 18 19 This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Paula Carrie Rogers’s (“Plaintiff”) 20 Motion to Disqualify Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney and the undersigned. (ECF No. 35.) 21 Plaintiff’s motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Delaney was previously denied. (ECF No. 37.) For 22 the reasons set forth below, the Court now also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to recuse the 23 undersigned. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 In seeking the undersigned’s recusal, Plaintiff invokes 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C § 2 455. (ECF No. 35 at 2–8.) “The substantive standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 3 U.S.C. § 455 is the same: whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would 4 conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. 5 Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (quotation and citation omitted). Notably, the 6 Supreme Court has explained, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias 7 or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554–56 (1994). 8 Here, Plaintiff has not provided any facts justifying the undersigned’s recusal. Plaintiff’s 9 only complaint with the undersigned stems from the minute order issued on October 9, 2024. 10 (ECF No. 35 at 16–17.) That minute order vacated the hearing before the undersigned regarding 11 Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and ordered Plaintiff to re-notice or re-set the 12 motion before the assigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21). (ECF 13 No. 34.) Plaintiff alleges this action constituted misconduct. (ECF No. 35 at 16.) However, as 14 the magistrate judge previously explained, under the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 15 California, a magistrate judge in Sacramento performs all actions in civil matters, where, as here, 16 all “plaintiffs or defendants are proceeding in propria persona[.]” E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21); 17 (ECF No. 37 at 4.). By ordering Plaintiff to file her motion before the magistrate judge, the 18 undersigned was simply complying with the local rules. No reasonable person would conclude 19 such an action brings into question the undersigned’s impartiality. 20 Finally, the Court notes that to the extent Plaintiff seeks to file a claim under the Judicial 21 Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. § 351, such a claim must be filed with the clerk of the 22 court of appeals for the circuit. Additionally, while Plaintiff states she “withholds any further 23 consent to the Magistrate’s jurisdiction,” such a statement does not change the Local Rules in this 24 case. (ECF No. 35 at 15.) 25 Given the above, Plaintiff’s motion to recuse as to the undersigned (ECF No. 35) is 26 DENIED. 27 // 28 // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 | DATE: December 5, 2024 3 5 6 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28