Vent v. Fletcher

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTEN VENT, Case No.: 3:22-cv-01651-RBM-DDL

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO RECUSE THE UNDERSIGNED 14 NATHAN FLETCHER, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16 [Doc. 9] 17 18 On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff Kristen Vent, proceeding pro se, filed a “request for 19 recusal” to the extent that either the district or magistrate judge has any interest in “FTX.” 20 (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff has offered no allegations as to how FTX is involved in the instant case. 21 In any event, Plaintiff’s motion lacks any allegations which support recusal of the 22 undersigned at this time. Plaintiff has not come forward with any facts that would lead a 23 reasonable observer “with knowledge of all the facts [to] conclude that the judge’s 24 impartiality might be reasonably questioned.” United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 25 891 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, 26 Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 ||DATE: January 24, 2023 3 eh Bsmudes, MA ities D_ 4 HON: RUTH BERMUDEZ'MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28