Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_17-cv-08024/USCOURTS-azd-3_17-cv-08024-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Dustin Roger Chantel, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Mohave Electric Cooperative Incorporated, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-08024-PCT-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before this Court are: Plaintiffs’ Notice to Respond and Amendanment 

(sic) to Complaint which this Court elects to treat as a motion to recuse (Doc. 6), and 

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. 5), which the Plaintiffs have submitted in Response 

to the Court’s Order dismissing their previous complaint in this action (Doc. 4). The 

Court rules on those motions as follows: 

 To the extent Plaintiffs’ Notice to Respond (Doc. 6) is intended to be a motion to 

recuse the motion is denied.1

 Plaintiff’s motion is based on this Court’s rulings either in 

this case, or previous cases brought by Plaintiff involving the same subject matter. It thus 

provides no justification for recusal. Disqualifying bias or prejudice must stem from 

something other than “information and beliefs” the judge “acquired while acting in his or 

her judicial capacity.” United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(quoting United States v. Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 853 n.6 (9th Cir. 1982)); accord 

 

1

 It does not appear that Plaintiffs’ notice was brought pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 455 

or 28 U.S.C. § 144 although the Plaintiffs do suggest that the Court’s actions demonstrate 

bias in favor of criminal activity which they allege is being committed by the Defendants. 

Case 3:17-cv-08024-GMS Document 7 Filed 03/01/17 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794, 799 (9th Cir. 2000). A judge’s adverse rulings 

during the course of proceedings in which disqualification is sought, or in related 

proceedings, do not constitute a valid basis for the judge’s disqualification. Liteky v. 

United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1995); In re Marshall, 721 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir. 

2013). Thus, Plaintiffs’ argument that this Court demonstrated bias when it referred to 

Judge Logan’s reasoning for dismissing their previous action as frivolous is not a basis on 

which they can seek to recuse this Court. 

 In any event, in its previous Order this Court ordered the Plaintiffs to set forth the 

basis on which this Court had jurisdiction over their claims against Defendants. This 

Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and just because Plaintiffs may have a basis for 

some claims based on state law against Defendants does not mean that they have a basis 

for bringing such claims in this Court. Plaintiffs have failed to make allegations 

suggesting that either (1) their attempt to have their electricity reconnected, (2) their 

claim for trespass against the cooperative, or (3) a claim for damages resulting from the 

termination of their electrical service amounts to a claim based on federal law. They 

have further failed to make allegations sufficient to suggest that they have diversity 

jurisdiction over the Defendants. 

 Plaintiffs set forth, as the basis for their jurisdictional claim, the statute that 

specifies that “the district court in which a case under title 11 (bankruptcy) is commenced 

or is pending shall have exclusive jurisdiction” over the property of a bankruptcy estate. 

Nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy action that involves the Defendants as debtors is over 

and Plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This Court granted Plaintiffs’ in forma pauperis request 

to bring such an appeal. Once Plaintiffs have completed their case in the bankruptcy 

court and filed their appeal with the BAP, the BAP has jurisdiction of these issues. 

28 U.S.C. § 158(c). This Court does not have jurisdiction to hear either their bankruptcy 

appeal or further claims against the same Defendants for which there is no federal 

jurisdiction. Plaintiffs in their Response acknowledge that they are raising these very 

Case 3:17-cv-08024-GMS Document 7 Filed 03/01/17 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

issues at the BAP (Doc. 6 at 3-4). 

 The Court has previously explained this to Plaintiffs and invited them to submit an 

amended complaint making appropriate allegations that would suggest that this Court has 

jurisdiction to hear this matter. See (Doc. 4). Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails to 

plausibly allege a basis on which this Court would have jurisdiction over their claims. In 

fact it is nearly identical to the previously dismissed complaint. “The district court’s 

discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously 

amended the complaint.” Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of Lake Traverse Indian 

Reservation, N.D. & S.D. v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting 

Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also Moore v. 

Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Leave to amend need 

not be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to dismissal.”). Plaintiffs’ Amended 

Complaint is therefore dismissed without leave to amend. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint filed 

February 27, 2017 (Doc. 5) is dismissed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Notice (Doc. 6) to the extent the 

Court treats it as a motion to recuse is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court terminate this matter and 

enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 1st day of March, 2017. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-08024-GMS Document 7 Filed 03/01/17 Page 3 of 3