Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Greg Moore, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Sean Garnand, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00290-TUC-RM (LAB)

ORDER 

On January 13, 2022, Plaintiffs Greg and Patricia Moore filed a “Motion for 

Orders (1) Removing United States Magistrate Judge from this Case; (2) Setting an 

Immediate Hearing on All Pending Motions; and (3) Ruling Expeditiously on All 

Pending Motions.” (Doc. 336.) Defendants responded in opposition. (Doc. 346.) 

Plaintiffs did not file a reply, and the deadline for doing so has expired. 

I. Background

Plaintiffs initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action on May 24, 2019, alleging First 

and Fourth Amendment violations arising from Defendants’ investigation of Plaintiffs in 

connection with suspected arson at the Forgeus Apartments. (Doc. 1.) On July 22, 2019, 

the undersigned referred the case to Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman for all pretrial 

proceedings and Report and Recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (Doc. 

16.)

On December 13, 2019, Magistrate Judge Bowman found that the law 

enforcement investigatory privilege was applicable to the Tucson Police Department’s 

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 352 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 4
- 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

(“TPD”) arson investigation files for the Forgeus Apartments. (Doc. 74.) This Court 

affirmed Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Order but required Defendants to submit for in 

camera review a report on the status of the criminal investigation into Plaintiffs’ potential 

involvement in the Forgeus Apartment fire and an anticipated reasonable terminus of the 

investigation. (Docs. 113, 154.) The Court directed Magistrate Judge Bowman to 

consider Defendants’ in camera submissions “to ensure that Plaintiffs’ claims in this 

action are litigated consistent with their due process rights and applicable case law, 

including ascertaining a reasonable terminus to Defendants’ criminal investigation of 

Plaintiffs and adjusting the discovery schedule accordingly.” (Doc. 154 at 10.)

On October 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Recusal/Disqualification, which 

sought the undersigned’s recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. (Doc. 298.) In that 

Motion, Plaintiffs complained, in part, about this Court’s rulings regarding the law 

enforcement investigatory privilege and delay in these proceedings. (Id.) The Court 

denied the Motion, finding that it was untimely and failed to present grounds warranting 

recusal. (Doc. 304.) However, the Court noted that it shared Plaintiffs’ concerns 

regarding delay in these proceedings, and it ordered Defendants to submit a further ex 

parte supplement regarding the status of TPD’s criminal investigation. (Id. at 7.) After 

reviewing Defendants’ ex parte supplement, the Court lifted the application of the law 

enforcement investigatory privilege to TPD files related to TPD’s investigation of 

Plaintiffs. (Doc. 306.) 

This case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Bowman for all pretrial 

proceedings and Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 306.)

II. Discussion

In their “Motion for Orders (1) Removing United States Magistrate Judge from 

this Case; (2) Setting an Immediate Hearing on All Pending Motions; and (3) Ruling 

Expeditiously on All Pending Motions,” Plaintiffs argue that the Court’s power to 

appoint a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) “necessarily includes the 

power to remove” an appointed magistrate judge from a case, and that Magistrate Judge 

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 352 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 4
- 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

Bowman’s delay in ruling on pending motions warrants her removal from this case. 

(Doc. 336.)

In their Response, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied for 

lack of jurisdiction because Plaintiffs cite no authority in support of their proposition that 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) authorizes a magistrate judge’s removal. (Doc. 346 at 3-4.) 

Defendants argue that the correct analytical framework for Plaintiffs’ requested relief is 

recusal or disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455; they further argue that 

Plaintiffs did not provide the affidavit required under § 144, that a motion under § 455 is

untimely, and that there are no grounds warranting Magistrate Judge Bowman’s recusal 

or disqualification. (Id. at 4-9.)

Plaintiffs do not explicitly request relief under 28 U.S.C. § 144 or § 455 in their 

Motion, nor do they present any facts that would warrant such relief.1 The Court 

assumes, as do Plaintiffs, that it has inherent discretion to withdraw a prior order referring 

a case to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the Court finds no 

grounds for withdrawing the magistrate-judge reference in this case. The delays that 

have occurred in this case since the lifting of the law enforcement investigatory privilege 

are unremarkable considering the busy dockets of judges within this district. 

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

1 Furthermore, even if Plaintiffs had requested relief under § 144 or § 455, any such 

request is untimely, and Plaintiffs did not present the affidavit required under § 144.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 352 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 4
- 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

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Motion for Orders (1) Removing United States 

Magistrate Judge from this Case; (2) Setting an Immediate Hearing on All Pending 

Motions; and (3) Ruling Expeditiously on All Pending Motions” (Doc. 336) is denied. 

This case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Bowman for all pretrial proceedings and 

Report and Recommendation. 

Dated this 11th day of February, 2022.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 352 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 4