Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00494/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00494-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

SEAVON PIERCE,

Petitioner,

v.

KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00494-LJO-EPG-HC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

DISQUALIFICATION

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(ECF Nos. 17, 18)

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, whose petitions to compel were 

dismissed in part and denied on November 1, 2016. (ECF No. 15). That same day, the Court 

entered judgment. (ECF No. 16). On November 18, 2016, the Court received the instant motions

for disqualification and reconsideration. (ECF Nos. 17, 18).

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Disqualification

A judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A judge shall also disqualify himself if he has “personal 

knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). The 

decision regarding disqualification is made by the judge whose impartiality is at issue. Bernard v. 

Coyne, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994). The Supreme Court has recognized that:

Case 1:16-cv-00494-LJO-EPG Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 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

27

28

2

[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a 

bias or partiality motion. In and of themselves (i.e., apart from 

surrounding comments or accompanying opinion), they cannot 

possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only 

in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or 

antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved. 

Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for 

recusal.

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (citation omitted). “The test is ‘whether a 

reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality 

might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(quoting United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997)). “Frivolous and 

improperly based suggestions that a judge recuse should be firmly declined.” Maier v. Orr, 758 

F.2d 1578, 1583 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).

Here, Petitioner generally asserts as grounds for disqualification the Court’s prior rulings 

regarding the petitions to compel. Petitioner also contends that the undersigned has “direct 

knowledge of the falsification of the public record as matters reported to the respondents which 

includes the F.B.I., and the evidence of these matters being concealed as acts by law enforcement 

associated officials upon favor, specifically the California Department of Corrections.” (ECF No. 

17 at 2).1The undersigned has no personal knowledge of the alleged falsification of the public 

record and has no question with his ability to remain impartial. There is no evidence of any 

impropriety in the record and Petitioner does not point to anything in the record even hinting at 

such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism that might warrant recusal. See Liteky, 510 U.S. 

at 555–56. Therefore, the undersigned will not recuse himself.

B. Motion for Reconsideration

As the motion for reconsideration was filed within twenty-eight days after entry of the 

judgment, the Court will consider the motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. The Ninth Circuit has held:

In general, there are four basic grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) 

motion may be granted: (1) if such motion is necessary to correct 

manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if 

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:16-cv-00494-LJO-EPG Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 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

27

28

3

such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously 

unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent 

manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an 

intervening change in controlling law.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing McDowell v. Calderon,

197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per curiam)). The Ninth Circuit has 

recognized that altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, 

to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona 

Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks 

omitted) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 

2000)).

Petitioner contends that altering or amending the judgment is warranted because 

Petitioner submits as new evidence “admitted facts as established under FRCP 36 in case 

numbers 1:16-cv-01282-DAD-MJS2and EDCV-09-00310-VAP-CW.” (ECF No. 18 at 2). As 

Petitioner has failed to set forth what this new evidence is, the Court finds that relief under Rule 

59(e) is not warranted on this ground. Petitioner also contends that “the rulings of the district 

court [are] contrary to law.” (ECF No. 18 at 3). Petitioner’s arguments generally were raised in 

his objections to the findings and recommendation, which the Court reviewed and considered 

when it conducted a de novo review of the case. Respondents do not have a ministerial duty “so 

plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt” to act in the manner requested by Petitioner.3Fallini 

 

2 The Court notes that in Case No. 1:16-cv-01282-DAD-MJS, Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis was 

denied because Petitioner suffered three or more dismissals constituting strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and did 

not qualify to proceed in forma pauperis under the imminent danger exception. The Court ordered Petitioner to pay 

the $400 filing fee or the action would be dismissed. Order, Pierce v. U.S. Congress, No. 1:16-cv-01282-DAD-MJS 

(E.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016), ECF No. 17. See United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (court may 

take judicial notice of its own records in other cases).

3

Petitioner’s filings are difficult to comprehend. In the first petition to compel, Petitioner appears to claim that the 

Riverside County Superior Court refuses to provide access to court records, which allegedly reveal illegal acts of the 

Riverside District Attorney’s Office, and that the CDCR is illegally confiscating mail. (ECF No. 1 at 2). In the 

second petition to compel, Petitioner states:

The petitioner is being denied access to attorneys, investigators, the appropriate authorities who 

investigate and respond, intervene upon such acts, public officials, government officials, specific 

persons/organizations, the media, the press, a federal violation submitted to the federal court, here 

presented as evidence, Exhibit “A” of the petitioners right to communicate/correspond, a First 

Amendment violation however defined to be resolved upon duty or constitutional obligation of the 

respondents. The duty is defined by law and duty of office to report any crime, illegal act, 

misconduct in public office, acts which violate the federal law between the petitioners, acts in 

Case 1:16-cv-00494-LJO-EPG Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 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

27

28

4

v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the Court finds that relief under 

Rule 59(e) is not warranted based on Petitioner’s contentions of manifest errors of law or fact.

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for disqualification 

(ECF No. 17) and the motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 18) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

 

violation of the Constitution which prevent communications between the defined petitioner(s) 

individually effected.

(ECF No. 11 at 4–5). 

Case 1:16-cv-00494-LJO-EPG Document 19 Filed 01/11/17 Page 4 of 4