Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00474/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00474-12/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASKIA S. ASHANTI

NO. CIV. 03-474 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al, O R D E R

Defendants.

 /

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s September 19, 2006 order

denying a motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff additionally moves

to recuse the magistrate judge on the grounds of bias and

prejudice. For the reasons set forth below, the motion for

reconsideration is denied, and the order of the magistrate judge

is affirmed.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was first convicted and committed to the custody of

the California Department of Corrections (“CDC”) in 1988. At the

time, plaintiff’s legal name was Lorenzo Cunningham. Subsequent

Case 2:03-cv-00474-LKK -GGH Document 105 Filed 11/20/06 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

2

to his parole in 1994, plaintiff changed his legal name to Askia

Ashanti. Plaintiff was convicted of another offense in 1996 and

was again committed to the custody of the CDC. When prison

officials refused to change plaintiff’s name to Askia Ashanti on

the majority of his prison records, plaintiff commenced the instant

litigation.

The magistrate judge denied plaintiff’s motions to compel

further discovery in an order filed September 19, 2006. Plaintiff

presently seeks reconsideration of the denial of his discovery

requests and recusal of the magistrate judge who issued the order.

II. STANDARD

A non-dispositive pretrial motion referred to the magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) is reviewed under a

clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 72-303(f); United States v. Raddatz, 447

U.S. 667, 673 (1980). Under this standard, the magistrate judge’s

decision is affirmed unless “the reviewing court on the entire

evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333

U.S. 364, 395 (1948).

III. ANALYSIS

1. Request to Recuse Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff first appears to allege that recusal is proper for

reasons of conflict of interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

“Under Section 455(a) . . . disqualification is proper only if the

judge has a ‘personal’ bias in the case.” Potlatch Corp. v. U.S.,

Case 2:03-cv-00474-LKK -GGH Document 105 Filed 11/20/06 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

3

548 F. Supp. 155, 156 (N.D. Cal. 1982). No factual allegations of

the magistrate judge’s personal bias appear in plaintiff’s motion.

Accordingly, recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is unjustified.

In an alternate theory of impropriety, plaintiff asserts that

recusal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). In support of

this allegation, plaintiff cites a number of prior adverse rulings

he received in this and prior related litigation from the

magistrate judge. See Pl.’s Mot. to Reconsider (“Pl.’s Mot.”) at

5-9. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, recusal is proper when “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)). “The alleged

prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source; a judge's prior

adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.” U.S. v.

Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986), citing Mayes, 729 F.2d

at 607; 13 C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER, & E. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

§ 3542, 346-48 (1975).

Plaintiff makes no allegations of extrajudicial prejudice, and

instead bases his motion for reconsideration solely upon a history

of prior adverse rulings. This is an insufficient basis for

recusal. See Studley, 783 F.2d at 939. Accordingly, defendant's

motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is denied.

2. Motion to Compel Discovery

The motion for reconsideration of the order denying

Case 2:03-cv-00474-LKK -GGH Document 105 Filed 11/20/06 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

4

plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is based primarily upon the

contention that recusal of the magistrate judge is proper. As

explained above, however, the court finds that recusal is

unwarranted.

Plaintiff additionally claims that the court was untimely in

responding to his motions. He alleges four months to be the

appropriate time for a response from the court. Pl.’s Mot. at 6.

There is no support for this allegation. The court has “broad

discretion in supervising the pretrial phase of litigation”.

Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.

2002). Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the

magistrate judge’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-00474-LKK -GGH Document 105 Filed 11/20/06 Page 4 of 4