Redeaux v. Wise

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MARY ANN REDEAUX, et al., Case No. 24-cv-01979-EMC

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE AMENDED COMPLAINT 9 v.

10 NOEL WISE, et al., Docket No. 8 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 Previously, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 15 but dismissed their complaint with leave to amend. See Docket No. 6 (order) (conducting review 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). Plaintiffs have timely filed an amended complaint. The Court 17 again reviews the pleading pursuant to § 1915(e). 18 Though Plaintiffs have made some changes to their original complaint, the amended 19 complaint does not address the deficiencies identified by the Court in its prior order. 20 To the extent Plaintiffs suggest that the Court lacks authority to adjudicate their case 21 because they did not “consent [to] a lesser judge,” Docket No. 23 (amended complaint) (ECF Page 22 23), the Court rejects the argument. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 23 1331 and 1367(a). See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all 24 civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”); id. § 1367(a) 25 (“[I]n any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall 26 have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action 27 within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 1 supporting recusal. See, e.g., United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986) (stating 2 || that “[t]he standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455 is ‘whether a reasonable person with 3 || knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be 4 || questioned’; [t]he alleged prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source; a judge’s prior 5 adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal”); United States v. McChesney, 871 F.3d 801, 807 6 (9th Cir. 2017) (indicating the same). 7 The Court therefore dismisses the amended complaint, this time with prejudice. The Clerk 8 || of the Court is instructed to enter a final judgment in accordance with the above and close the file 9 || in the case. 10 11 IT ISSO ORDERED. 12 13 || Dated: April 22, 2024 14 a g 15 EDW. . CHEN = 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28