Stanley Gleason v. J. Gastelo

Opinion

1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY GLEASON, ) Case No. CV 19-03742 DDP (JPR) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) Order Denying Motion to ) Disqualify Magistrate Judge 13 v. ) Rosenbluth ) 14 WARDEN, J. CASTELO, et al., ) ) [Dkt. 43] 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 Presently before the court is Plaintiff Stanley Gleason’s 18 Motion to Disqualify Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 455. (Dkt. 42.) Having reviewed Platintiff’s submission, 20 the court DENIES the motion and adopts the following Order. 21 Plaintiff asserts that Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth is biased 22 against him because he is proceeding pro se. Under Section 455, a 23 judge “shall disqualify h[er]self in any proceeding in which h[er] 24 impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and in proceedings in 25 which “[s]he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, 26 or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the 27 proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a),(b)(1). The Ninth Circuit has 28 articulated the standard for disqualification under § 455 as 1 The test under § 455(a) is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's 2 impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Typically, a judge’s partiality must be shown to be based on information 3 from extrajudicial sources, although sometimes, albeit rarely, predispositions developed during the course of a 4 trial will suffice. In the instance where the partiality develops during the course of the proceedings, it can be 5 the basis of recusal only when the judge displays a deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism that would render 6 fair judgment impossible. 7 F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 8 1128, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citations 9 omitted). 10 Here, Plaintiff has not established that Magistrate Judge 11 Rosenbluth’s impartiality could reasonably be called into question. 12 Petitioner does not allege that Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth has 13 considered or relied upon any extrajudicial sources. Nor has 14 Plaintiff demonstrated that Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth harbors any 15 “deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism” toward him. F.J. Hanshaw 16 Enters., 244 F.3d at 1144-45. Instead, Plaintiff appears to 17 suggest that Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth improperly rejected two 18 documents for filing: Plaintiff’s “Request to Waive Court Fees” and 19 Plaintiff’s “Motion for Entry of Default Judgment.” As Magistrate 20 Judge Rosenbluth explained, however, Plaintiff’s request to waive 21 court fees was submitted in improper form and was, in any event, 22 unnecessary, as Plaintiff had already been granted leave to proceed 23 in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 6.) Indeed, Plaintiff’s motion to 24 disqualify acknowledges that Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth granted 25 Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed without prepayment of 26 filing fees. (Dkt. 4.) As to Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of 27 Default Judgment, Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth explained that the 28 1} motion could not be filed because no complaint had yet been served 2|| upon Defendants. Although it is clear that Plaintiff disagrees with Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth’s decisions, this court sees no evidence of bias “that would render fair judgment impossible” in this action. F.J. Hanshaw Enters., 244 F.3d at 1145. 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Magistrate Judge Rosenbluth is DENIED. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 13] Dated: April 2,2020 “U 14 DEAN D. PREGERSON 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28