Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00187-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLEN YOCOM,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHLEEN ALLISON,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00187-NONE-HBK

ORDER SANCTIONING PETITIONER

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR RULING

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR RECUSAL

(Doc. No. 52)

Petitioner Michael Allen Yocom, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Before the Court is 

Petitioner’s “motion to screen the petition,” which the Court construes as a motion for ruling on 

his petition. (Doc. No. 52). Incorporated in this motion is Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary 

hearing and request that the undersigned recuse herself from this case. (See generally id.). The 

Court will deny Petitioner’s motions. Further, the Court will sanction Petitioner. 

On July 12, 2021, in light of Petitioner’s repeated duplicative and frivolous filings (see 

(e.g. Doc. Nos. 6, 8, 14, 18, 20, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40, 42, 48, 50), the Court ordered Petitioner to 

show cause why he should not be subject to sanctions. (Doc. No. 47). The Court ordered 

Petitioner to respond to this show cause order within 14 days. (Id. at 3). Petitioner has not 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 53 Filed 09/15/21 Page 1 of 4
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

2

responded to the order to show cause and the time for doing so has passed. Instead of responding 

to the order to show cause, Petitioner filed two frivolous and repetitive filings, both of which 

were stricken from the docket. (Doc. Nos. 48, 49, 50, 51). Petitioner now moves the Court to 

rule on his petition, grant an evidentiary hearing, and for the undersigned to recuse herself from 

the case. (Doc. No. 52).

A. Motion for Ruling on Petition

Petitioner moves the Court to rule on his petition expeditiously. (Doc. No. 52). The 

Court has the discretion to manage its own docket. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th 

Cir. 1992). And this Court has “long labored under one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation.” 

See Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in Eastern District of California.1 

Accordingly, the Petitioner is advised that the Court will issue findings and recommendations 

regarding his petition in due course. Therefore, Petitioner’s motion for ruling on the petition is 

denied.

B. Motion for Evidentiary Hearing

Petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. No. 52). Petitioner has previously moved 

for an evidentiary hearing six times, all of which have been denied. (Doc. Nos. 8, 20, 33, 40, 42, 

46). Evidentiary hearings are granted only under limited circumstances in habeas proceedings. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2)(A)(ii). Although Respondent has now filed an answer to the petition, 

the Court has not yet reviewed the briefing. The Court will review the briefing and make findings 

and recommendations in due course. If the Court determines that an evidentiary hearing is 

warranted, it will schedule one at that time. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, R. 8(a).

C. Motion for Recusal

Petitioner seeks the undersigned to recuse herself from this case. (Doc. No. 52). The 

standard for judicial recusal is as follows: “[w]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all 

the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United 

States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (brackets and internal 

1 Available at: http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Standing%20Order%20CV.pdf; last 

accessed September 14, 2021. 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 53 Filed 09/15/21 Page 2 of 4
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

3

quotation marks omitted). Importantly, “[p]arties cannot attack a judge’s impartiality on the basis 

of information and beliefs acquired while acting in his or her judicial capacity.” United States v. 

Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 853 n.6 (9th Cir. 1982). “As the Supreme Court has explained,

‘opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of 

the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality 

motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment 

impossible.” United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891-92 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Liteky v. 

United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)).

Here, Petitioner has presented no basis for the recusal of the undersigned. Petitioner has 

not stated, much less provided evidence, that the undersigned is biased against him. Rather, 

Petitioner seemingly seeks recusal because he disagrees with the pace of the litigation of this 

case. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for recusal is denied.

D. Order Sanctioning Petitioner

“Flagrant abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person 

to preempt the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims 

of other litigants.” Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Here, Petitioner has been warned many times that his repeated frivolous and duplicative filings 

will subject him to sanctions. (Doc. Nos. 40, 44, 47, 51). Because Petitioner has continued to 

make such filings, the Court will subject him to sanctions. The Court orders that all future filings 

shall be screened by the Court prior to entry on the docket. If the Court deems any future filings 

to be frivolous and/or duplicative, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to return the filing to 

the Petitioner.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s motion for ruling on the petition (Doc. No. 52) is DENIED;

2. Petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing (Doc. No. 52) is DENIED;

3. Petitioner’s motion for recusal (Doc. No. 52) is DENIED; and

4. Petitioner is subject to sanctions in accordance with the above. The Clerk of Court 

shall notify the Court prior to the docketing of any future filings by Petitioner, providing 

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 53 Filed 09/15/21 Page 3 of 4
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

4

an opportunity to the Court to screen such filings and direct the Clerk of Court to return 

them to Petitioner if appropriate.

Dated: September 15, 2021 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00187-JLT-HBK Document 53 Filed 09/15/21 Page 4 of 4