Sussman v. San Diego Police Dept.

S.D. California

Sussman v. San Diego Police Dept.

DecidedJuly 21, 2020

Docket3:20-cv-01085

StatusUnknown

This text of Sussman v. San Diego Police Dept. (Sussman v. San Diego Police Dept.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sussman v. San Diego Police Dept., (S.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NANCY SUSSMAN, Case No.: 20cv1085-CAB-LL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. EX PARTE MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF THE MAGISTRATE 14 SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, JUDGE et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 47] 16 17 18 On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff Nancy Sussman, proceeding pro se, filed an Ex Parte 19 Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Lopez. ECF No. 47. Specifically, Plaintiff 20 Sussman stated that she “object[s] to have Magistrate Lopez for any purpose in this case.” 21 Id. The Court construes the Motion as an Ex Parte Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge 22 Lopez. Notably, Plaintiff’s Motion is merely one sentence and fails to provide any reasons 23 in support of her request. Id. 24 Although Plaintiff does not specify whether she brings her Motion under 28 U.S.C. 25 § 455 or 28 U.S.C. § 144, her Motion fails under either standard because she fails to present 26 any “facts” from which a “reasonable person” could “conclude that the judge’s impartiality 27 might reasonably be questioned. See Yagman v. Republic Ins. (“Yagman II”), 987 F.2d 28 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added) (quoting In re Yagman (“Yagman I”), 796 2d 1 |}1165, 1179 (9th Cir.), amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986), mandamus granted by 2 || Brown v. Baden, 815 F.2d 575 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, Real v. Yagman, 484 U.S. 963 3 || (1987)) (citing United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 4 ||U.S. 1012 (1980)). Recusal is not warranted under either statute based on speculation. See, 5 Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2005) 6 || (citing Yagman IT, 987 F.2d at 626). The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs Ex Parte 7 || Motion. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: July 20, 2020 XO 10 DEF 11 Honorable Linda Lopez 1D United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NANCY SUSSMAN, Case No.: 20cv1085-CAB-LL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. EX PARTE MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF THE MAGISTRATE 14 SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, JUDGE et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 47] 16 17 18 On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff Nancy Sussman, proceeding pro se, filed an Ex Parte 19 Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Lopez. ECF No. 47. Specifically, Plaintiff 20 Sussman stated that she “object[s] to have Magistrate Lopez for any purpose in this case.” 21 Id. The Court construes the Motion as an Ex Parte Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge 22 Lopez. Notably, Plaintiff’s Motion is merely one sentence and fails to provide any reasons 23 in support of her request. Id. 24 Although Plaintiff does not specify whether she brings her Motion under 28 U.S.C. 25 § 455 or 28 U.S.C. § 144, her Motion fails under either standard because she fails to present 26 any “facts” from which a “reasonable person” could “conclude that the judge’s impartiality 27 might reasonably be questioned. See Yagman v. Republic Ins. (“Yagman II”), 987 F.2d 28 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added) (quoting In re Yagman (“Yagman I”), 796 2d 1 |}1165, 1179 (9th Cir.), amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986), mandamus granted by 2 || Brown v. Baden, 815 F.2d 575 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, Real v. Yagman, 484 U.S. 963 3 || (1987)) (citing United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 4 ||U.S. 1012 (1980)). Recusal is not warranted under either statute based on speculation. See, 5 Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2005) 6 || (citing Yagman IT, 987 F.2d at 626). The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs Ex Parte 7 || Motion. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: July 20, 2020 XO 10 DEF 11 Honorable Linda Lopez 1D United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sussman v. San Diego Police Dept., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sussman-v-san-diego-police-dept-casd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack