Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00529-23/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

ETUATE SEKONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. FRANCIS,

Defendants.

1:19-cv-00529-ADA-HBK (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS AND TO RECUSE

(Doc. No. 78)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion titled “Off 2 times settlement conference. 

In bad faith by Counsel of the defendant. Delay of Justice and a Prejudice. Wasted of 

Resources” filed on April 28, 2023. (Doc. No. 78). The Defendant has not filed any opposition 

and the time to do so has expired. See Local Rule 230(l) (opposition to motions in prisoner 

actions due within twenty-one days from the date the motion was filed). Liberally construed, 

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant in connection with the April 17, 2023 Settlement 

Conference and seeks a recusal of the undersigned. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s 

motion is denied. 

Sanctions Against Defendant

Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant claiming defense counsel took part in the 

Settlement Conference in bad faith. (Doc. No. 78 at 2). Plaintiff states that he did not request a 

settlement conference and defense counsel had no intent to settle the case but used the settlement 

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 89 Filed 06/23/23 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

conference to prolong the case and amass more billable hours. (Id.). Plaintiff offers no evidence 

to support his allegations. (See generally id.). 

On February 9, 2023, the district court set this case for a second settlement conference 

before the undersigned. (Doc. No. 68); see also Local Rule 270(a) (“A settlement conference 

shall be held in all actions unless otherwise ordered by the Court on objection of a party or for 

other good cause.”). Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant objected to the second settlement conference 

pursuant to Local Rule 270(a). 

To the extent Plaintiff faults defense counsel for not tendering an agreeable offer, the 

Court cannot locate any authority that requires a party to make an agreeable offer, or even a 

counteroffer, during a settlement conference. Plaintiff offers no evidence, other than his 

suspicions, that Defendant participated in the settlement conference in bad faith. 

Recusal of Magistrate Judge

Liberally construed, the motion also appears to request that the undersigned recuse herself 

due to his belief that the undersigned is bias against him based on the undersigned’s discussion 

with him during the settlement conference about the strengths and weaknesses of his case. (Doc. 

No. 78 at 3-6). Whether a federal judge must recuse oneself is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 455 provides that a “magistrate judge shall disqualify [herself] in any 

proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or “[w]here [she] has a 

personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a). “The standard for judging 

the appearance of partiality requiring recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) is an objective one and 

involves ascertaining ‘whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would 

conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” United States v. 

Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008); Preston v. United States, 923 F.2d 731, 734 (9th Cir. 

1991) (citations omitted). The “reasonable person” is not someone who is “hypersensitive or 

unduly suspicious,” but rather is a “well-informed, thoughtful observer.” Holland, at 913. “The 

standard “‘must not be so broadly construed that it becomes, in effect, presumptive, so that 

recusal is mandated upon the merest unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or prejudice.’” 

Holland, 519 F.3d at 913. The court’s analysis is “fact-driven” requiring “an independent 

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 89 Filed 06/23/23 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

examination of the unique facts and circumstances of the particular claim at issue.” Id. at 914 

(citation omitted). Thus, “except in the “rarest of circumstances,” recusal under § 455(a) is 

limited to “extra judicial source” factors requiring the reason for recusal to be “something other 

than rulings, opinions formed or statements made by the judge during the course of trial.” Id. 

(citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554–56, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994)).

Applying these principles to the instant matter, the Court declines to recuse herself from 

this case. Notably, Plaintiff identifies no reasons, yet alone identifying any extra judicial source 

factors, to warrant a recusal. To the extent that Plaintiff argues the undersigned should be recused 

because the undersigned conducted a settlement conference is unavailing. This Court’s Local 

Rules permit the undersigned to conduct a settlement conference because the undersigned is not 

the trial judge. Local Rule 270(b). Further, this case, which is set for trial on August 8, 2023, 

remains subject to adjudication by United States District Judge Ana de Alba, an Article III judge.

According, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and for the undersigned to recuse herself (Doc. No. 78) is 

DENIED.

Dated: June 23, 2023 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00529-KES-HBK Document 89 Filed 06/23/23 Page 3 of 3