Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01442/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01442-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

HARLEY McNEIL, 

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

15-cv-1442-AWI GSA

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

On November 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a request that the undersigned be disqualified “due 

to a conflict of interest because of proceedings and judgments involving [Plaintiff’s] deceased 

son, Levi Lingenfelter.” (Doc. 17). This is the only sentence Plaintiff articulated in support of 

his motion. 

The Court believes that the Plaintiff’s son may have been a party in a state court 

proceeding that the undersigned presided over several years ago. Plaintiff is advised that a judge 

must disqualify himself if “his impartiality might be reasonably questioned,@ 28 U.S.C. ' 455(a), 

or if Ahe has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed 

evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. ' 455(b)(1). “[J]udicial rulings or 

information acquired by the court in its judicial capacity will rarely support recusal.” United 

Case 1:15-cv-01442-AWI-GSA Document 18 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 2
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

States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Litkey v. United States, 510 U.S. 

540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)). The objective test for determining whether recusal is required 

is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge=s 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147 (quotation marks and 

citation omitted); Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038. 1043 (9th Cir. 2008). “Adverse findings 

do not equate to bias,” and prior rulings in the proceeding, or another proceeding are ordinarily 

insufficient to establish that recusal is required. Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147-1148. Thus, 

Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s judicial rulings in a case does not constitute a valid basis 

for a bias or partiality motion. In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)). 

Given the above, the fact that the undersigned presided over prior proceedings involving 

the Plaintiff or his son is not by itself a basis for the Court’s recusal. However, given the limited 

information in the motion, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to supplement his pleading 

if he so desires. Plaintiff shall file any additional pleading no later than December 6, 2016. 

Failure to file a supplemental brief may result in denial of this motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2016 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01442-AWI-GSA Document 18 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 2