Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02333/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02333-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Medical Malpractice

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Peter L. Fear, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:18-cv-02333-KJM-DB 

Orlonzo Hedrington, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

County of Solano, et al., 

Defendants. 

Orlonzo Hedrington, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

David Grant Medical Center, et al., 

Defendants. 

Orlonzo Hedrington, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Veteran’s Administration of the United States 

of America, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-00414-KJM-DB 

No. 2:22-cv-00074-KJM-DB 

No. 1:22-cv-01425-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

Case 2:18-cv-02333-KJM-DB Document 81 Filed 07/05/23 Page 1 of 2
2 

1 In case No. 2:18-cv-2333, Orlonzo Hedrington requests the undersigned recuse from 

2 hearing “all” his cases. ECF No. 79. The court interprets that request as applying to all of the 

3 related cases in the caption above. 

4 Cases 2:18-cv-2333 and 2:21-cv-0414 are closed, so the recusal request is denied as moot 

5 in those cases. With respect to cases 2:22-cv-0074 and 2:22-cv-1425, district judges must recuse 

6 from hearing a case if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or if they have a 

7 “personal bias or prejudice against a party.” United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 

8 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995). But judges have an obligation not to recuse themselves in some 

9 cases; that obligation “is perhaps at its highest” if a party requests recusal after “an adverse ruling 

10 in the course of the action.” United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 1205–06 

11 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Hedrington’s request fits that description. He pursues recusal based on judicial 

12 rulings and decisions in the cases above. 

13 The court orders as follows: 

14 (1) The court construes the filing at ECF No. 79 in Case No. 2:18-cv-2333 as applying 

15 to all of the related cases in the caption above; 

16 (2) The request is denied as moot in case Nos. 2:18-cv-2333 and 2:21-cv-0414; and 

17 (3) The request is denied in case Nos. 2:22-cv-0074 and 2:22-cv-1425. 

18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

19 DATED: July 5, 2023. 

20 

Case 2:18-cv-02333-KJM-DB Document 81 Filed 07/05/23 Page 2 of 2