Ramirez v. Quick

Ramirez · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · March 14, 2023 · No. 1:22-cv-01610-ADA-SAB (PC)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied Israel Maldonado Ramirez’s motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. The court held that Plaintiff provided no evidence of an extrajudicial personal bias or other statutory basis for disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455, and that disagreement with the court’s rulings was insufficient.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Writing for the Court
Stanley A. Boone
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decision date
March 14, 2023
Docket number
1:22-cv-01610-ADA-SAB (PC)
Procedural posture
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, moved to recuse the assigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455.
Standard of review
A motion for judicial disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is decided by the judge whose impartiality is questioned. Disqualification is required when the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when an enumerated ground under § 455(b) exists.
Precedential value
Unpublished district court order; precedential status unknown.
Disposition
other

Topics

civil procedurecivil rightssection 1983prisoners rights

Practice areas

Civil procedureCivil rightsPrisoner litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the assigned magistrate judge, rather than another judge, must decide Plaintiff's motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455.
  2. Whether Plaintiff established a statutory basis for recusal based on alleged disagreement with the Court's rulings and failure to allow the action to proceed past screening.

Holdings

  1. A motion under § 455 must be addressed and decided by the judge whose impartiality is being questioned, unless that judge independently determines that recusal is required.
  2. Plaintiff's motion for recusal must be denied because disagreement with the Court's rulings and the absence of an order allowing the case to proceed past screening do not establish personal bias or another ground for disqualification under § 455.

Key quotations

Federal law provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” (at 1)
A motion under § 455 is addressed to, and must be decided by, the very judge whose impartiality is being questioned. (at 1)
Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's ruling is not a legitimate ground for seeking disqualification. (at 2)

Factual background

Plaintiff was proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a § 1983 civil rights action. He sought recusal of Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone based on the possibility that the judge would not allow the case to proceed forward and past screening. Plaintiff offered no evidence of personal bias arising from an extrajudicial source.

Procedural history

Israel Maldonado Ramirez filed a prisoner civil rights action against J. Quick and other defendants. While the action was pending, Plaintiff moved to recuse Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone, arguing that recusal was warranted if the Court did not allow the case to proceed past screening. The Court denied the motion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…