Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018-33/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAVIN M. RHODES,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. ROBINSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:02-CV-05018-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO RECUSE DISTRICT JUDGE AND

MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. 243)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR CASE TO BE HEARD BY THREEJUDGE DISTRICT COURT (DOC. 246)

Plaintiff Kavin M. Rhodes (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court

is: 1) Plaintiff’s motion to recuse United States District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill and the

undersigned, United States Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck, filed July 25, 2011, and 2)

Plaintiff’s motion for his case to be heard by a three judge district court, filed August 24, 2011. 

Docs. 243, 246. The matter is submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(l).

I. Motion For Recusal

Section 455, Title 28 of the United States Code governs the disqualification of judges or

magistrate judges. Plaintiff brings his motion pursuant to subsections (a) and (b)(1). Subsection

(a) states: “Any . . . judge[] or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in

any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). 

Subsection (b)(1) states that a judge or magistrate shall disqualify himself “[w]here he has a

personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary

1

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 253 Filed 11/30/11 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

facts concerning the proceeding.” Id. § 455(b)(1). The provisions of § 455(a) and (b)(1) are selfenforcing.

 Plaintiff also files the motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144, which states

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a

timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending

has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party,

such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to

hear such proceeding.

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or

prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of

the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for

failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any

case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is

made in good faith.

If the judge to whom a timely motion is directed determines that the accompanying

affidavit specifically alleges facts stating grounds for recusal under § 144, the motion must be

referred to another judge for a determination of the merits. United States v. Sibla, 624 F.3d 864,

867 (9th Cir. 1980). The judge to whom the motion is directed is to determine independently

whether all the circumstances call for recusal, and such matter rests within the sound discretion

of that judge. Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868. Motions under § 144 are directed to the judge before

whom the matter is pending, which in this instance would be the undersigned. Plaintiff has

attached an affidavit to his motion. The Court assumes without deciding that Plaintiff’s motion

was timely filed.

Having set forth the legal standards, the Court now examines Plaintiff’s affidavit.

A. The Affidavit

Plaintiff contends that Judge O’Neill and the undersigned are engaged in a conspiracy

with CDCR officials named in Plaintiff’s third supplemental complaint, pursuant to the

Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiff lists several instances which he

believes are evidence of Judge O’Neill and the undersigned’s bias and prejudice against Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff first contends that Plaintiff’s mail from the Court was delivered to the incorrect address. 

Pl.’s Aff. ¶ 2, Doc. 243. This allegation is without merit. Plaintiff’s address was not updated

due to clerical error, which was corrected when brought to the Court’s attention. Additionally,

Plaintiff was not prejudiced, as Plaintiff received the Court’s orders afterwards.

2

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 253 Filed 11/30/11 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

Plaintiff alleges that the undersigned conspired with prison officials to have Plaintiff

beaten and his legal property confiscated in order for the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s action

pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s allegation of conspiracy

is insufficient and implausible. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Plaintiff

presents no evidence other than his own conclusory statements. This is not evidence of Judge

O’Neill or the undersigned’s bias or prejudice against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff next complains that the Court required Plaintiff to file a third supplemental

complaint without providing Plaintiff a copy of his second amended complaint, which had been

alleged confiscated by prison officials. Pl.’s Aff. ¶¶ 3-4. As explained in the Court’s April 7,

2011 Order, the Court does not provide Plaintiff, or any pro se litigant, with a free copy of his

second amended complaint. This is not evidence of Judge O’Neill or the undersigned’s bias or 1

prejudice against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff finally complains that he has no way of responding to Defendants’ motion to

dismiss filed June 28, 2011 as a result of the deprivation of his legal property. P.’s Aff. ¶ 5. This

is incorrect, as Plaintiff did file an opposition on August 23, 2011. Pl.’s Opp’n, Doc. 245. This

is not evidence of Judge O’Neill or the undersigned’s bias or prejudice against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff has raised no arguments in his affidavit that meet the threshold requirement for

recusal. Plaintiff complains of circumstances at his current prison. However, that is not

evidence of bias or prejudice by the judges assigned to this action. Clerical errors are also not

evidence of bias or prejudice.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to recuse Judge O’Neill

and the undersigned, filed July 25, 2011, is DENIED.

///

///

///

 Plaintiff also complains that the caption stated that Plaintiff’s motion for a copy of his 1

second amended complaint had been granted. Such caption was erroneous. Plaintiff was not

misinformed in the body of the order, which denied Plaintiff’s motion.

3

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 253 Filed 11/30/11 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

II. Motion For Case To Be Heard By Three Judge Court

Plaintiff moves for this case to be heard by a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§2284. Section 2284, Title 28 of the United States Code governs three-judge courts. 2

Subsection (a) states in pertinent part: “A district court of three judges shall be convened when

otherwise required by Act of Congress.” Plaintiff contends that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), as

amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), is unconstitutional, in violation of the

First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Supremacy

Clause in that it allows CDCR to enact its own regulations to screen out prisoner appeals. Pl.’s

Mot. 2, Doc. 246. However, Plaintiff cites to no authority that indicates Plaintiff’s complaint

with the PLRA should be heard by a three-judge court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is

HEREBY ORDERED denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 29, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 Plaintiff also made his motion under § 2281. Section 2281 was repealed by the Act of 2

August 12, 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-381, § 1, 90 Stat. 1119.

4

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 253 Filed 11/30/11 Page 4 of 4