Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01352/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01352-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 48:1985 Conspiracy/Deprivation 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELANIE C. LATRONICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERRILL LYNCH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01352-LJO-SAB 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO RECUSE

(ECF No. 15)

Plaintiff Melanie C. Latronica is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. 

On November 7, 2016, the undersigned issued a findings and recommendations recommending 

that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint be dismissed without leave to amend and Plaintiff’s 

motion for injunction be denied as moot. (ECF No. 11.) On that same date, the findings and 

recommendations was served on Plaintiff. 

On November 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document which was called 

“PETITION/MOTION/writ of prohibition.” (ECF No. 15 at 1.) Plaintiff requests the removal of 

the undersigned from the case. The Court construes the filing as a motion to recuse the 

undersigned.

A judge is required to recuse himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might 

reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Under section 455(a), a judge must recuse 

himself if a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that his 

Case 1:16-cv-01352-LJO-SAB Document 16 Filed 11/22/16 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

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 909, 911 (9th 

Cir. 2011). Actual bias is not required; “the appearance of impropriety can be a sufficient basis 

for judicial recusal.” Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, 742 F.3d 1215, 1219 (9th 

Cir. 2014). A judge “must not simply recuse out of an abundance of caution when the facts do 

not warrant recusal. Rather, there is an equally compelling obligation not to recuse where 

recusal in not appropriate.” United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., 759 F.Supp.2d 1198, 1200-01 

(E.D. Cal. 2010). The appearance of impropriety is gauged by how the conduct would be viewed 

by a reasonable person, not someone who is “hypersensitive or unduly suspicious.” Blixseth, 

742 F.3d at 1219 (citations omitted). The challenged judge is to rule on the legal sufficiency of 

the recusal motion in the first instance. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 

1986). 

The question under section 455 is whether a reasonable person would perceive a 

significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on some basis other than the merits. United 

States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008). Section 455 “is limited by the 

‘extrajudicial source’ factor which generally requires as the basis for recusal something other 

than rulings, opinions formed or statements made by the judge during the course of trial.” Id. at 

913-14 (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554–56 (1994)). Judicial remarks made 

during proceedings require recusal only where “they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or 

antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.” Blixseth, 742 F.3d at 1221. Where the source 

of alleged bias or prejudice is a judicial proceeding, plaintiff must show a disposition on the part 

of the judge that “is so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair judgment.” Liteky, 510 

U.S. at 551. “The test is ‘whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would 

conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. 

Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 

1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997)). “Frivolous and improperly based suggestions that a judge recuse 

should be firmly declined.” Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 1583 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations 

omitted).

The Court finds no grounds upon which recusal in this action would be required. 

Case 1:16-cv-01352-LJO-SAB Document 16 Filed 11/22/16 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

Plaintiff alleges that the undersigned is biased and has a conflict of interest because “he is 

amongst those who are described as and or a member of the CSC Lawyers incorporating service 

company and their registered agents, who are steal defendants on the case original & amended.” 

(ECF No. 15 at 1.) Although Plaintiff cites a conflict of interest, the undersigned is not 

associated with CSC Lawyers and the undersigned does not have a conflict of interest in this 

matter. The undersigned does not have a personal bias or prejudice concerning any of the parties 

in this action or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). 

Plaintiff also alleges that the Court’s rulings, comments, and/or conduct, and specifically 

the November 7, 2016 findings and recommendations, show the undersigned’s bias. However, 

the Court finds that the November 7, 2016 findings and recommendations does not “reveal such 

a high degree of favoritism or antagonism” as to cause a reasonable person to question the 

impartiality of the undersigned. Plaintiff’s disagreement with an order or findings and 

recommendations is not sufficient to warrant recusal. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555 (“judicial 

rulings almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).

The undersigned find no grounds to question his ability to remain impartial. There is no 

evidence of any impropriety in the record and Plaintiff does not point to anything in the record 

even hinting at such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism that might warrant recusal

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555–56. Therefore, the undersigned will not 

recuse himself.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to recuse the 

undersigned (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01352-LJO-SAB Document 16 Filed 11/22/16 Page 3 of 3