(PS) Swartz v. State of California

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00902
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE F. SWARTZ, No. 2:25-cv-00902-DC-CSK (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, (Doc. No. 4) 15 Defendant.

16 17 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the undersigned district 18 judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. (Doc. No. 4.) For the reasons set for below, Plaintiff’s motion 19 will be denied. 20 “Federal law allows a judge to recuse from a matter based on a question of partiality, 21 personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge or disputed evidentiary facts 22 concerning a proceeding.” Iliya v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 2:22-cv-01305-DC-CSK, 2025 WL 23 791704, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2025) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1)). “The standard for 24 recusal is ‘whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the 25 judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 26 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). “The goal of section 455(a) is to avoid even the appearance of 27 partiality.” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988) (citation 28 omitted). “Although a judge must recuse [] from any proceeding in which any of the section 455 1 | criteria apply, [the judge] must not simply recuse out of an abundance of caution when the facts 2 | do not warrant recusal.” Vargas v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrs. & Rehab., No. 1:20-cv-000083-JLT-CDB, 3 | 2024 WL 4682652, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2024) (citing United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 4 | 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008)). 5 In the pending motion, Plaintiff asserts that disqualification and recusal are appropriate 6 | simply because of the race and gender of the district judge assigned to his case, and Plaintiff's 7 | beliefs regarding the competencies and temperament of African American women. (Doc. No. 4.) 8 | Specifically, Plaintiff appears to take issue with African American women serving as federal 9 | judges, by calling into question their qualifications, including mathematical skills and scores on 10 || standardized tests. (Ud. at 3-7.) Plaintiff also asserts that women are irrationally arrogant and 11 | angry, and he has “identified a difficult-to-describe concern in reviewing [the undersigned’s] 12 | online profile and picture.” (/d. at 6.) 13 Plaintiff has not provided any factual basis that would justify recusal of the undersigned as 14 | the district judge in this case. Thus, Plaintiffs motion for the disqualification and recusal of the 15 || undersigned (Doc. No. 4) is hereby DENIED. 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 19 | Dated: _April 15, 2025 RUC Dena Coggins 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28