Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01002/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01002-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01002-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO RECUSE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(ECF No. 62)

Plaintiff Lyralisa Lavena Stevens is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to recuse the undersigned Magistrate 

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, filed March 8, 2023. Defendants did not file an opposition. 

Federal law allows a judge to recuse from a matter based on a question of partiality:

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in 

any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He shall also 

disqualify himself ... [w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or 

personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding....

28 U.S.C. 455(a), (b)(1).

A party may seek recusal of a judge based on bias or prejudice:

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 

Case 1:17-cv-01002-JLT-SAB Document 66 Filed 04/04/23 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

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[.]

28 U.S.C. § 144.

Relief under Section 144 is conditioned upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient 

affidavit. A judge who finds the affidavit legally sufficient must proceed no further 

under Section 144 and must assign a different judge to hear the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 

144; United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). Nevertheless, where the affidavit 

lacks sufficiency, the judge at whom the motion is directed can determine the matter and 

deny recusal. See United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Toth v. Trans

World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that only after determining 

the legal sufficiency of a Section 144 affidavit is a judge obligated to reassign decision on merits 

to another judge)); United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

1995) (if the affidavit is legally insufficient, then recusal can be denied).

The standard for legal sufficiency under Sections 144 and 455 is “ ‘whether a reasonable 

person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might 

reasonably be questioned.’” Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir.

1984) (quoting United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983)); United States v.

Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986). To provide adequate grounds for recusal, the 

prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 869. A judge's previous 

adverse rulings alone are not sufficient for recusal. Nelson, 718 F.2d at 321.

Here, Plaintiff contends that the assigned Magistrate Judge “[r]efused to uphold the 

integrity and independence of the judiciary and that Magistrate Boone has refused to avoid 

impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in the authoring of his findings, which repeatedly 

contain Defamatory Libelous misgenderings [sic] of Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 62 at 1.) Plaintiff 

makes references a prior case in this Court in which Plaintiff was inadvertently referred twice as 

“he” instead of “she.” (ECF No. 62 at 2-3.) Plaintiff's motion for recusal in this case is 

substantively insufficient, as it alleges bias, prejudice and impartiality based on the 

Case 1:17-cv-01002-JLT-SAB Document 66 Filed 04/04/23 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

undersigned’s inadvertent typographical error in a prior case. Plaintiff's motion for recusal fails 

to allege facts to support a contention that the undersigned has exhibited bias or prejudice 

directed towards Plaintiff from an extrajudicial source. Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868. Thus, Plaintiff 

does not provide a basis for recusal and the motion must be denied. See Liteky v. United States,

510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a 

bias or partiality motion.”); id. (“In and of themselves ... [judicial rulings] cannot possibly show 

reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the 

degree of favoritism or antagonism required ... when no extrajudicial source is 

involved.”) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (ECF No. 62) is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-01002-JLT-SAB Document 66 Filed 04/04/23 Page 3 of 3