Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06288/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06288-10/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

FRANCOIS P. GIVENS, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., )

)

)

Defendants. )

 /

1:04-cv-6288-AWI-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING

MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

WITHDRAW CONSENT AND

DISQUALIFY MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(Documents #60, #79, #82, #87)

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Francois P. Givens (“Plaintiff”), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On March 7, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations that

recommended the court deny Plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief.. The Findings

and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any

objections could be filed by March 20, 2007. After receiving an extension of time within which

to file objections, on March 30, 2007, Plaintiff filed objections, along with a motion to withdraw

Case 1:04-cv-06288-AWI-DLB Document 93 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 6
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

consent and disqualify the Magistrate Judge.

DISCUSSION

A. Motions for Injunctive Relief

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305,

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the court finds the Findings and Recommendations, recommending Plaintiff’s motions for

injunctive relief be denied, to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 

As explained by the Magistrate Judge, before the court may issue injunctive relief, the

court must have before it a case or controversy. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 (1968). 

Absent such a case or controversy, the court has no power to hear the matter. Rivera v. Freeman,

469 F.2d 1159, 1162-1163 (9th Cir. 1972). In addition, the court is unable to issue any order

against individuals who are not parties to a suit pending before it. Zenith Radio Corp. v.

Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100 (1969). Finally, “to prevail on a motion for preliminary

injunctive relief, the moving party must establish a relationship between the injury claimed in the

motion and the conduct giving rise to the complaint.” Lebron v. Armstrong, 289 F. Supp. 2d 56,

61 (D. Conn. 2003). At this time, the court has dismissed the operative complaint with leave to

file a third amended complaint. As such, currently there are no claims or defendants before the

court that involve the issue in Plaintiff’s requested injunction – interference with Plaintiff’s mail. 

 To the extent Plaintiff attempted to make such a claim in his last complaint, Plaintiff failed to

link any named Defendant to the alleged constitutional violation. As explained by the

Magistrate Judge, preliminary injunctive relief is designed to preserve the status quo regarding

the substance of the case; it is not available for the purpose of ensuring that Plaintiff can

effectively or efficiently litigate his case. Because there is no complaint currently on file, the

Case 1:04-cv-06288-AWI-DLB Document 93 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 6
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

 Plaintiff refers to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case as “Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Best.” 1

Because there is no Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Best in this court and the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action is

Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck, the court will address Plaintiff’s motion as to Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck.

3

court cannot address either the likelihood of success on the merits or whether there are serious

questions going to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, the court will adopt the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendation that the motions for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. 

B. Motion to Withdraw Consent and Disqualify Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck

In the objections, Plaintiff requests that the court disqualify Magistrate Judge Dennis L.

Beck and allow him to withdraw his consent. 1

Plaintiff seeks to recuse Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck from this action. Title 28

U.S.C. § 455 provides:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself

in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or

personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the

proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in

controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served

during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or

such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such

capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the

proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular

case in controversy;

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor

child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject

matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest

that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to

either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of

a party;

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in

Case 1:04-cv-06288-AWI-DLB Document 93 Filed 06/13/07 Page 3 of 6
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

4

the proceeding.

(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial

interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal

financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.

The bias for recusal must stem from an “extrajudicial source.” Liteky v. United States,

510 U.S. 540, 554-56 (1994); United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1454 (9 Cir. 1997). th

In general, rulings made during the course of a case cannot be extra-judicial conduct. See

Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 830 F. 2d 1513, 1523-24 (9 Cir. 1987); Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, th

Berliner, Carson & Wurst v. Louisiana Hydrolec, 854 F. 2d 1538, 1548 (9 Cir. 1988). th

However, in Liteky v. United States, the Supreme Court recognized that: 

The fact that an opinion held by a judge derives from a source outside judicial

proceedings is not a necessary condition for “bias or prejudice” recusal, since

predispositions developed during the course of a trial will sometimes (albeit

rarely) suffice.

Liteky, 510 U.S. 540, 554. However, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis

for a bias or partiality motion. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 940 (9th

Cir. 1998); United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1560 (9 Cir.1996). Judicial bias or prejudice th

formed during current or prior proceedings is sufficient for recusal only when the judge's actions

“display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” 

Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; Chischilly, 30 F.3d at 1149. Thus, judicial rulings may support a

motion for recusal only “in the rarest of circumstances.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; Chischilly, 30

F.3d at 1149.

In this case, Plaintiff does not allege any "extrajudicial source" for Magistrate Judge

Dennis L. Beck’s alleged bias. Plaintiff also has not demonstrated such a deep-seated

favoritism on the part of Judge Dennis L. Beck as to make fair judgment impossible. To the

contrary, Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck continues to grant Plaintiff leave to amend his

Case 1:04-cv-06288-AWI-DLB Document 93 Filed 06/13/07 Page 4 of 6
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

5

complaint when another judge might have recommended dismissal of this action for Plaintiff’s

inability to state a claim. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck

is denied.

Finally, Plaintiff requests to withdraw his consent. The right to adjudication before an

Article III judge is a constitutional right. United States v. Neville, 985 F.2d 992, 999 (9 Cir. th

1993). This right can be waived, however, allowing parties to consent to trial before a magistrate

judge. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 479-80 (9 Cir.1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Once th

a civil case is referred to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. 636(c), the reference can be vacated

by the court only “for good cause shown on its own motion, or under extraordinary

circumstances shown by any party.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(4). Here, this action has not been

referred to Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck. All parties must agree to Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction, and because Defendants have not yet made an appearance, they have not consented

or declined to consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Thus, any motion to withdraw the

reference to Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck is premature as this case has not yet been referred

to Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck.

The court notes that Plaintiff’s basis for wanting to withdraw his consent appears to relate

to rulings Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck has made his this case. Contrary to Plaintiff’s

assumption, Local Rule 72-302(b)(c)(17) specifically refers all prisoner civil rights cases,

including all motions, to the magistrate judge. Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck would be

making these non-dispositive rulings regardless of Plaintiff’s consent. 

//

Case 1:04-cv-06288-AWI-DLB Document 93 Filed 06/13/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

ORDER

Accordingly, the court orders that:

1. The March 10, 2007 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in

FULL;

2. Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief [documents #60 & #70] are

DENIED;

3. Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the Magistrate Judge [document #87] is

DENIED; 

4. Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw consent [document #87] is DENIED; and

5. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06288-AWI-DLB Document 93 Filed 06/13/07 Page 6 of 6