Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00022/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00022-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARROD MOTEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THERESA CISNEROS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00022 JLT GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S POSSIBLE

RECUSAL REQUEST OF THE 

UNDERSIGNED IN THIS CASE BASED ON 

ASSERTIONS PLAINTIFF HAS MADE 

CONTAINED IN PLAINTIFF’S ADDENDUM 

(ECF No.19) TO HIS COMPLAINT IN CASE

1:24-cv-00043 JLT GSA (PC)

SHARROD MOTEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-cv-00043 JLT GSA (PC)

ORDER DENYING RECUSAL OF THE 

UNDERSIGNED BASED ON ASSERTIONS 

MADE BY PLAINTIFF CONTAINED IN HIS

ADDENDUM TO THE COMPLAINT (ECF

No.19)

(See ECF No. 19 at 29, 57-63)

Plaintiff has filed an Addendum to his complaint in court case number 24-cv-00043.

1

 

Within it, he alleges the undersigned and other District and Magistrate Judges along with Court 

Clerks of both this District and the Central District of California have, among an assortment of

1

 The Court will conduct an in-depth review of the addendum under separate order.

Case 1:24-cv-00022-JLT-GSA Document 21 Filed 09/10/24 Page 1 of 5
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

conspiratorial allegations, actively engaged in a concerted effort to subvert the due process of 

justice. See ECF No. 19 at 29, 57-63. Although this order specifically addresses the Addendum 

filed by Plaintiff in case number 24-cv-00043, this order is also being filed concurrently in case 

number 24-cv-00022 as the undersigned has determined that it is applicable to that case as well. 

The Court lists below several of Plaintiff’s allegations which are contained in the Addendum in 

case number 24-cv-00043.2

I. RELEVANT FACTS

In Plaintiff’s Addendum to case 24-cv-00043, the sum and substance of Plaintiff 

allegations against the undersigned and some of the other named judges is that either individually

or collectively have: (1) assisted prison officials with obstructing the progression of his lawsuits 

(see ECF No. 19 at 29, 57-63); (2) engaged in a concerted effort to subvert the due course of 

justice (Id.); (3) aided and abetted the tampering of critical documents (id.); and (4) “with 

malicious intent, colluded to shield correctional officers from civil liability” (id.).

In specific reference to the undersigned, Plaintiff alleges, among other conspiratorial

assertions as mentioned above, that the undersigned has “conspir[ed] to harass and obstruct” his 

legal proceedings, and while “leveraging his judicial acumen, has purportedly engaged in a 

conspiracy to harass and obstruct the Plaintiff’s legal proceedings.” ECF No. 19 at 58 (brackets 

added). Plaintiff further contends that the undersigned has ignored his showings of cause and has

colluded with the District Judge who is assigned to this matter in violation of statutory 

obligations. Id. The undersigned’s actions, Plaintiff contends, have “undermine[ed] the integrity 

of judicial proceedings” and have “subvert[ed] the fair administration of justice.” ECF No. 19 at 

58-63 (brackets added).

II. APPLICABLE LAW: RECUSAL AND IMMUNITY

A party’s request for a judge’s recusal due to bias is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455. 

The party making such a motion must file a “timely and sufficient” affidavit in support of the 

request. 28 U.S.C. §§ 144. A District Judge must disqualify himself if his impartiality might be 

2

 Unless otherwise stated, all references to the docket in this order refer to case number 24-cv00043.

Case 1:24-cv-00022-JLT-GSA Document 21 Filed 09/10/24 Page 2 of 5
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

reasonably questioned or if he has a personal bias or prejudice against a party. 28 U.S.C. § 

455(a), (b)(1). If the filed affidavit for recusal is not timely or legally sufficient, the judge at 

whom the motion is directed can determine the matter (see United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 

977 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted)), and the recusal request can be denied (see United States v. 

$292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995)).

A judge should disqualify himself from proceedings to which he is a party when 

necessary. See 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(5)(i). However, the Ninth Circuit has upheld District Judges’ 

decisions not to disqualify themselves “unless there is a legitimate basis for suing the judge.” See

generally Glick v. Edwards, 803 F.3d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Andersen v. Roszkowski,

681 F. Supp. 1284, 1289 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 1988)).

In addition, judges are absolutely immune “from damage liability for acts performed in 

their official capacities.” See Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (en banc). 

They also have absolute immunity when the challenged action is within the jurisdiction of the 

Court. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12, (1991); see Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 

1243-44 (9th Cir. 1996) superseded by statute in Nordin v. Scott, No. 22-15816, 2023 WL 

4418595 (9th Cir. July 10, 2023). Additionally, Section 1983 “contemplates judicial immunity 

from suit for injunctive or declaratory relief for acts taken in a judicial capacity.” Wolfe v. 

Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 366 (9th Cir. 2004) (injunctive relief), overruled on other grounds by

Munoz v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 91 4th 977 (9th Cir. 2024); Moore, 96 F.3d at 

1243-44 (injunctive and declaratory relief).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Recusal

To begin, a review of the applicable Addendum in case # 24cv43 (ECF No.19) indicates 

that Plaintiff has not filed the requisite affidavit that must accompany a request for recusal. See

generally ECF No. 19. This may be because Plaintiff’s Addendum was not intended by him to be

a motion to recuse the undersigned or any other judges of the Court, but rather intended to be an

amended complaint which was one of the alternatives offered Plaintiff in the “show cause” order

issued August 5, 2024. See ECF No. 17.

Case 1:24-cv-00022-JLT-GSA Document 21 Filed 09/10/24 Page 3 of 5
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

However, treating the Addendum as a motion to recuse, Plaintiff has not provided any

factual support for the motion other than offering wholly unsubstantiated conjectural assertions

stemming from an illusory conspiracy, the nature of which borders on the fanciful. Further, and

importantly, all rulings and actions made and taken by the undersigned in this case have been

done in a judicial capacity, and as such almost never constitute a valid basis for recusal. See

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). The test for personal bias or prejudice in Section 

144 is identical to that in Section 455(b)(1). See United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 

1980). In either case, the substantive standard is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of 

all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See

United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450 (9th Cir. 1997). In this case, even from a most liberal

reading of Plaintiff’s Addendum, no reasonable person could possibly conclude that the 

undersigned’s impartiality, or that of any of the other named judges, could be reasonably 

questioned.

Finally, given the patent frivolousness of Plaintiff’s assertions, his attempt to sue the 

undersigned provides no additional basis for recusal. See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934 

(9th Cir. 1986). 

In sum, because Plaintiff’s conspiratorial assertions in his Addendum are so patently 

frivolous they leave no room for any rational person to find partiality or bias on behalf of the 

undersigned. Accordingly, to the extent the Addendum is intended by Plaintiff to be a motion to 

recuse, the request is denied in both this case and in case # 24cv22.

B. Immunity

As previously stated, a judge is entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages for 

acts taken while s/he is acting in his/her judicial capacity unless s/he acted in the clear absence of 

all jurisdiction. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). This includes acts which are 

erroneous, malicious or even in excess of jurisdiction. Id. It is apparent that the undersigned has 

acted within his jurisdiction as a Magistrate Judge handling pretrial matters in this action. See 28 

U.S.C. 636(b)(1) (authorizing a Magistrate Judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter 

pending before the Court). 

Case 1:24-cv-00022-JLT-GSA Document 21 Filed 09/10/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Here, although a discussion of immunity at this juncture may seem somewhat premature, 

as pointed out above it is nonetheless relevant to the issue of recusal in that Plaintiff’s naming of

the undersigned as a Defendant in his Addendum, based upon actions taken by the undersigned in 

his official judicial capacity, is categorically without legal merit and frivolous as a matter of law. 

See Wiesner v. Pro, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134242 (judge dismissing frivolous claims sua sponte 

without recusing himself, despite being named a defendant in the suit).

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiff is requesting that the 

undersigned recuse himself from this case and case # 24cv22, said requests are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00022-JLT-GSA Document 21 Filed 09/10/24 Page 5 of 5