Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00437/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00437-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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 

Ammon M. Sprau, II, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

City of Surprise; Surprise Police 

Department, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-12-437-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Ammon M. Sprau II’s Motion for New and 

Different Judge (Doc. 22) and Motion to Supplement Pleadings. (Doc. 23). The Court 

construes Plaintiff’s Motion for New and Different Judge as a motion to recuse pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 455. The Court also construes Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement as a 

motion to amend pursuant to Rule 15(a). For the reasons discussed below, the Court 

denies both motions. 

BACKGROUND 

 On January 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed his amended complaint against Defendants in 

the Maricopa County Superior Court alleging violations of his constitutional rights. 

(Doc. 1, Ex. 2). On March 1, 2012, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal invoking 

Plaintiff’s claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the basis for removal. 

Case 2:12-cv-00437-GMS Document 29 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

(Doc. 1, Ex. 5). On March 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion to Amend 

Caption in Superior Court, which the court granted, changing the caption from “2nd 

Amendment Rights, 4th Amendment Rights” to “Replevin, Refusal to Return Personal 

Property, Punitive & Exemplary Damages.” (Doc. 3, Ex. 1). On March 19, 2012, 

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand. (Doc. 19). The Court denied his motion to remand 

because the Court’s determination of subject matter jurisdiction is based on “the 

pleadings at the time of removal without reference to subsequent amendments.” Sparta 

Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(See Doc. 21 at 2). The Court further held that, on its face, Plaintiff’s complaint invokes 

federal law by seeking damages for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 

1, Ex. 2). Plaintiff then filed the instant Motion to Recuse and Motion to Amend. 

(Docs. 22, 23). Defendants did not file a response to either motion. 

DISCUSSION 

I. Motion to Recuse 

 A. Legal Standard 

 28 U.S.C. § 455 governs whether a federal judge must recuse in a particular case. 

It states in relevant part: 

(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. 

 In interpreting these statutory provisions the Supreme Court has determined that a 

court’s “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis” for a motion to 

Case 2:12-cv-00437-GMS Document 29 Filed 07/09/12 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

recuse. United States v. Liteky, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). This is because “opinions 

formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of 

the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings do not constitute a basis for a bias or 

partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would 

make fair judgment impossible.” Id. Thus, statements made in ruling on particular 

motions establish bias only in extremely rare circumstances. 

 The moving party bears the burden of proving facts sufficient to justify recusal. 

Pursuant to the terms of the statute, the Court must determine whether the claims of bias 

are legally sufficient before determining that the Court “shall proceed no further” on the 

movant’s case. The statute “must be given the utmost strict construction to safeguard the 

judiciary from frivolous attacks upon its integrity and to prevent abuse and insure the 

orderly functioning of the judicial system.” Rademacher v. City of Phoenix, 442 F. Supp. 

27, 29 (D. Ariz. 1977) (citations omitted). 

 Allegations that are merely conclusory are not legally sufficient. United States v. 

$292,888.04 U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995). 

 B. Analysis 

In Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse, he essentially makes two assertions. First, he 

alleges that the Court is prejudiced against pro se plaintiffs. Second, he avers that the 

Court has “refused to read or rule on” any of Plaintiff’s motions or Plaintiff’s “true 

complaint.” (Doc. 22 at 1–2). The Court finds that neither of these assertions provides 

an appropriate basis for recusal. Each allegation of prejudice will be addressed in turn. 

 1. Allegations of actual or apparent prejudice against pro se plaintiffs 

 In Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse, he appears to infer bias from the Court’s decision 

to permit the removal of his case to federal court, stating “[t]his lawsuit was illegally 

removed from [] Superior Court.” (Doc. 22 at 2). Plaintiff also avers the Court “is 

prejudice against pro se plaintiff’s and . . . intends to find for [D]efendants no matter 

what [P]laintiff can prove in court.” Id. In the order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Remand, the Court held his allegations of violations of his constitutional rights and 

Case 2:12-cv-00437-GMS Document 29 Filed 07/09/12 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

damages incurred therefrom constitute sufficient bases for federal subject matter 

jurisdiction. (Doc. 21 at 2). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has made clear that 

“opinions formed by the judge on the basis of . . . events occurring in the course of the 

current proceedings . . . do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they 

display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment 

impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. 

 Plaintiff fails to allege or show any deep-seated favoritism or antagonism. Rather, 

he simply complains of this Court’s rulings, or the perceived failure to rule, on Plaintiff’s 

motions. As discussed above, that is not a basis upon which the Court’s impartiality 

might reasonably be questioned for purposes of § 455(a). 

2. Allegations of failing to read the pleadings 

 Plaintiff alleges the Court has failed to read Plaintiff’s pleadings or his “true 

complaint.” (Doc. 22 at 1–2). Nevertheless, Plaintiff provides no basis or circumstance 

that would support this assertion. Allegations that are merely conclusory are not a legally 

sufficient basis on which recusal could be granted. $292,888.04 U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d at 

566; United States v. Vespe, 868 F.2d 1328, 1340 (3d Cir. 1989). The Court therefore 

finds that recusal is not warranted and Plaintiff’s Motion for New and Different Judge 

will be denied. 

II. Motion to Amend 

 Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Supplement, pursuant to Rule 15(d), in which he 

seeks to amend his punitive damages claim from eight-million dollars to sixteen-million 

dollars. (Doc. 23). Rule 15(d) provides that a court may permit a party to file “a 

supplemental pleading setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened 

after the date of the pleading to be supplemented.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(d). “Rule 15(d) 

permits the filing of a supplemental pleading which introduces a cause of action not 

alleged in the original complaint and not in existence when the original complaint was 

filed.” Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 382 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation 

omitted). Because Plaintiff has not established a new cause of action or alleged an 

Case 2:12-cv-00437-GMS Document 29 Filed 07/09/12 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

occurrence or event that happened after the date of his complaint, the Court denies this 

motion. 

 Moreover, even were the Court to construe Plaintiff’s pleading broadly as a 

motion to amend, such motion would be denied. “The court should freely give leave [to 

amend] when justice so requires.” FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). However, the Court may 

deny a motion to amend if the proposed amendment would be futile. See Foman v. 

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). When bringing a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

for alleged violations of constitutional rights, punitive damages are not recoverable 

against a municipality or a state official sued in his or her official capacity. See City of 

Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981); Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 

(1983). Any amendment of Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim would therefore be futile. 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse and 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for New and Different 

Judge (Doc. 22) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 23) is 

DENIED. 

 Dated this 9th day of July, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00437-GMS Document 29 Filed 07/09/12 Page 5 of 5