Ripdaman Narula v. Orange County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 14, 2021
• Docket: 8:19-cv-00133
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RIPDAMAN NARULA, Case No. 8:19-cv-00133-DSF-JC 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, v. CONCLUSIONS, AND 13 RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 The Court has conducted the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636 and 19 accepts the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 20 reflected in the May 3, 2021 Report and Recommendation of United States 21 Magistrate Judge (“Report and Recommendation”). 22 On May 17, 2021, Plaintiff objected to the Report and Recommendation in a 23 document entitled “Plaintiff Requests Hon. DJ to Reject Hon. MJ’s 24 Recommendations Completely and Grant Plaintiff’s November 22 Summary 25 Judgment Motion” (“Objections”). (Dkt. No. 84). For the reasons discussed 26 herein, Plaintiff’s Objections are overruled. 27 In the Objections, Plaintiff complains the Magistrate Judge is “too prejudice 28 against him – very prejudice.” (Dkt. No. 84). To the extent this assertion can be 1 || interpreted as a request to recuse the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 2 || or 28 U.S.C. § 455, it is without merit and is denied. 3 “742 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 2014). However, “judicial 11 || rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality 12 | motion. ... Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for 13 || recusal.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); United States v. 14 || McChesney, 871 F.3d 801, 807 (9th Cir. 2017). “Recusal is only warranted if 15 || rulings are based on extrajudicial ‘knowledge that the [judge] ought not to 16 || possess’ or “reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair 17 || judgment impossible.’” Blixseth, 742 F.3d at 1220 (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 18 || 555). 19 Here, Plaintiff does not allege — and certainly has not shown — the 20 || Magistrate Judge’s decisions were based on any extrajudicial knowledge. Rather, 21 || Plaintiffs grievances are based entirely on court rulings with which he disagrees. 22 || (See Dkt. No. 84). However, “[n]Jothing in the court’s rulings suggests any 23 || partiality and certainly nothing ‘display[ed] a deep-seated favoritism or 24 || antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.’” United States v. 25 || McChesney, 871 F.3d 801, 807-08 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 26 || 555); see also United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) 27 || (‘Adverse findings do not equate to bias.”). Therefore, to the extent Plaintiffs 28 | ///

1 Objections can be read as a request for the Magistrate Judge’s recusal, his request 2 is without merit and is denied. 3 Beyond this, Plaintiff’s Objections merely rehash unconvincing arguments 4 and are meritless for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 6 1. Plaintiff’s Objections (Dkt. No. 84) are overruled/denied. 7 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (Dkt. No. 81) is stricken. Alternatively, 8 the Motion to Vacate is denied on its merits. 9 3. This action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to 10 comply with this Court’s April 1, 2020 Order (Dkt. No. 60) and 11 November 2, 2020 Order (Dkt. 80). 12 4. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and 14 the Judgment on Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants who have appeared in this 15 action. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 DATED: June 14, 2021 19 ________________________________________ 20 HONORABLE DALE S. FISCHER 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3