Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00745/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00745-6/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 

ANTHONY JAMAL HALL, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-0745-KJM-EFB 

 Plaintiff Anthony Hall is not represented by counsel in this case. This matter is 

before the court on Hall’s motion for reconsideration of judgment, ECF No. 39, and Hall’s 

motion for recusal/disqualification of the undersigned, ECF No. 40. The matter was submitted 

without a hearing on September 15, 2016. ECF No. 41. For the reasons discussed below, the 

court DENIES both motions. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On July 28, 2015, the magistrate judge assigned to this case issued findings and 

recommendations, which recommended dismissal after Hall did not timely file an amended 

complaint. ECF No. 16. These findings and recommendations were served by mail the same day 

they were issued. Hall was allowed fourteen days to object. Id. He did not file objections. The 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-00745-KJM-EFB Document 42 Filed 12/08/16 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

court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations in full on September 16, 

2015, ECF No. 17, and judgment was entered on the same date, ECF No. 18. 

 On December 31, 2015, Hall moved to reopen the case. ECF No. 20. He 

explained that the U.S. Postal Service had not forwarded his mail after he changed his address on 

September 3, 2015. Id. at 7. On February 16, 2016, the court denied his motion. ECF No. 21. 

The court found that because Hall did not change his address until September 3, 2015, the only 

mail he could not have received as a result of a postal system failure was the court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Id. at 3. That is, he did not 

explain why he did not respond to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, which 

were filed and served by mail on July 28, 2015. See id.1 On February 29, 2016, Hall moved for 

reconsideration, ECF No. 22, and in a memorandum and declaration filed in support of his motion 

reiterated his difficulties with the Postal Service. See Mem. 16, ECF No. 25; Hall Decl. ¶¶ 26–

34, ECF No. 25-1. He did not address whether he received the magistrate judge’s findings and 

recommendations or explain why he did not object to them. On March 2, 2016, the court denied 

Mr. Hall’s motion and warned that “[s]imilar requests for reconsideration filed in the future will 

be disregarded.” ECF No. 26 at 2. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Motion for Reconsideration 

 Hall’s instant motion for reconsideration repeats the same allegations as the 

motion for reconsideration the court denied on March 2, 2016. ECF No. 39. The court already 

warned that similar motions would be disregarded. ECF No. 26 at 2. Accordingly, the court 

DISREGARDS Hall’s motion for reconsideration. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

 1

 This order erroneously stated a “complaint” was served on Hall on May 6, 2015. See id. 

at 2:3. Rather, the magistrate judge’s minute order at ECF No. 13 was served on Hall that day by 

mail.

Case 2:14-cv-00745-KJM-EFB Document 42 Filed 12/08/16 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

B. Motion for Recusal 

 Hall’s motion to disqualify/recuse proffers no basis for disqualification or recusal 

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 or 455, repeats the same allegations as his motion for reconsideration, 

and is untimely. 

 Hall bases his recusal motion on the statutory language of 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 144 and 455. ECF No. 40 at 1. “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). 

“Ordinarily, the alleged bias must stem from an ‘extrajudicial source.’” Id. at 1454 (quoting 

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554–56 (1994)). In Liteky, the Supreme Court explained, 

“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality 

motion.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 554–56. 

 Here, Hall presents no facts or arguments tending to show the court harbored any 

bias or prejudice due to extraterritorial sources, and points only to the court’s ultimate decision as 

proof of bias. ECF No. 40. Hall bases his motion on arguments relating to why he believes this 

court’s adoption of the magistrate’s findings and recommendations was in error, and why the 

judgment in this case violated his due process rights. ECF No. 40. A motion for recusal under 

28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 is not the appropriate vehicle for re-litigation of the merits of Hall’s 

case, nor assertion of due process violations. See Hernandez, 109 F.3d at 1453–54. 

 In addition to citing inadequate grounds for recusal, Hall’s recusal motion is 

untimely. To avoid the waste of judicial time and resources, a request for judicial disqualification 

should be filed as soon as the party has reason to know of a judge’s potential bias. Molina v. 

Rison, 886 F.2d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[I]t is well established that a motion to disqualify or 

recuse a judge under 28 U.S.C. § 144 [as well as] ... § 455 must be made in a timely fashion.”) 

(citation omitted); see also Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 733 (9th Cir. 1991) 

(explaining parties must file a recusal with “reasonable promptness after the ground for such a 

motion is ascertained.”). This court was assigned to hear the case in early 2014, and the court 

Case 2:14-cv-00745-KJM-EFB Document 42 Filed 12/08/16 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

adopted the magistrate’s findings and recommendations on September 16, 2015, ECF No. 17. 

Hall did not file his motion for recusal until August 15, 2016, nearly one year after the court’s 

judgment in the case, and provides no explanation for his delay. 

 In addition to being untimely, Hall’s request for recusal merely repeats the same 

allegations he makes in his motion for reconsideration, which the court already has resolved. 

Accordingly, Hall’s motion for disqualification is DENIED. 

In sum, Hall’s motion for reconsideration is DISREGARDED and his motion for 

disqualification is DENIED. All similar motions will be disregarded in the future without 

comment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

This resolves ECF Nos. 39 and 40. 

DATED: December 7, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-00745-KJM-EFB Document 42 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 4