Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00475/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-00475-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAULA CARRIE ROGERS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants,

No. 2:24-cv-00475-TLN-CKD

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Paula Carrie Rogers’s (“Plaintiff”)

Motion to Disqualify Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney and the undersigned. (ECF No. 35.) 

Plaintiff’s motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Delaney was previously denied. (ECF No. 37.) For 

the reasons set forth below, the Court now also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to recuse the 

undersigned. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:24-cv-00475-TLN-CKD Document 43 Filed 12/06/24 Page 1 of 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

2

In seeking the undersigned’s recusal, Plaintiff invokes 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C § 

455. (ECF No. 35 at 2–8.) “The substantive standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 

U.S.C. § 455 is the same: whether 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) (quotation and citation omitted). Notably, the 

Supreme Court has explained, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias 

or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554–56 (1994). 

Here, Plaintiff has not provided any facts justifying the undersigned’s recusal. Plaintiff’s 

only complaint with the undersigned stems from the minute order issued on October 9, 2024. 

(ECF No. 35 at 16–17.) That minute order vacated the hearing before the undersigned regarding 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and ordered Plaintiff to re-notice or re-set the 

motion before the assigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21). (ECF 

No. 34.) Plaintiff alleges this action constituted misconduct. (ECF No. 35 at 16.) However, as 

the magistrate judge previously explained, under the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, a magistrate judge in Sacramento performs all actions in civil matters, where, as here,

all “plaintiffs or defendants are proceeding in propria persona[.]” E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21); 

(ECF No. 37 at 4.). By ordering Plaintiff to file her motion before the magistrate judge, the 

undersigned was simply complying with the local rules. No reasonable person would conclude 

such an action brings into question the undersigned’s impartiality. 

Finally, the Court notes that to the extent Plaintiff seeks to file a claim under the Judicial 

Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. § 351, such a claim must be filed with the clerk of the 

court of appeals for the circuit. Additionally, while Plaintiff states she “withholds any further 

consent to the Magistrate’s jurisdiction,” such a statement does not change the Local Rules in this 

case. (ECF No. 35 at 15.) 

Given the above, Plaintiff’s motion to recuse as to the undersigned (ECF No. 35) is 

DENIED.

//

//

Case 2:24-cv-00475-TLN-CKD Document 43 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: December 5, 2024

___________________________________

TROY L. NUNLEY

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-00475-TLN-CKD Document 43 Filed 12/06/24 Page 3 of 3