Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00007/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00007-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud

---

1 

17-cv-00007-H (JLB) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AHTAZABAN-EL-BEN YAHAWADA, 

dba Robert P. Crowe, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

HAUHNA A. HICKS; et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 17-cv-00007-H (JLB) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECUSAL 

[Doc. Nos. 10, 12.] 

 On January 6, 2017, Plaintiff Ahtazaban-El-Ben Yahawada dba Robert P. Crowe, 

proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against several defendants, alleging state law causes 

of action for fraud, forgery, trespass, and conspiracy. (Doc. No. 1.) Along with the 

complaint, Plaintiff paid the $400.00 filing fee.1

 (Id.) 

The entirety of the allegations set forth in the complaint were as follows: 

[I], ahtazaban-el-ben yahawada, require: a ‘court of record’ and trial by 

jury[.] 

Claim: Fraud, Forgery, Trespass and Conspiracy 

                                                                

1

 In addition to the $350 statutory fee required under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), civil litigants must pay 

an additional administrative fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914 Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, 

District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2014). 

Case 3:17-cv-00007-H-JLB Document 13 Filed 03/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

17-cv-00007-H (JLB) 

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

[I], ahtazaban-el-ben yahawada; autochthon; a man: all said wrongdoer(s) 

continue and conspire to trespass upon my property with the use of forged 

document(s) on/near 2/25/2015 by force and intimidation along with the 

aiding of said ex officio employee(s) Black’s Law 9th pg. 657. 

[I] require compensation for the continual trespass upon my property; 

compensation due: All property retuned to i and one-million dollars for 

damages and wrongs done to i. 

[I]; ahtazaban-el-ben yahawada; a man; verify/certify said claims to be true 

under penalty and perjury. 

 

(Id.) On January 23, 2017, the Court sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice 

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 3.) In the order, the Court explained that 

it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action because the allegations in the complaint 

were obviously frivolous, and the complaint failed to sufficiently allege facts showing that 

the Court possessed diversity jurisdiction. (Id. at 2-3.) See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 

1221, 1226 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984); NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 612 (9th 

Cir. 2016). In the order, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint 

by February 24, 2017. (Doc. No. 3 at 4.) 

 To date, Plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint. On March 20, 2017, 

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit as to the Court’s January 23, 2017 

order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. (Doc. No. 6.) 

On March 20 and 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed two documents requesting an order from 

the undersigned judge recusing herself from the case. (Doc. Nos. 10, 12.) The Court denies 

Plaintiff’s request for recusal. The only basis for recusal given in Plaintiff’s filings is the 

Court’s January 23, 2017 order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. This is 

insufficient to justify a recusal from the case. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 

555 (1994) (“[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; 

Case 3:17-cv-00007-H-JLB Document 13 Filed 03/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

17-cv-00007-H (JLB) 

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

and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism 

required (as discussed below) when no extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, 

they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.” (citation omitted)); United States v. 

Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that dismissal of a civil case will 

not “will not serve as [a] bas[is] for recusal absent unusual circumstances” and that 

“[a]dverse findings do not equate to bias”); United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 914 

(9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that “‘prior rulings in the proceeding’” will not ordinarily serve 

as a basis for recusal). Further, Plaintiff’s assertion that the Court’s dismissal order was 

malicious is without merit given that the dismissal order contained a thorough and reasoned 

analysis of the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint and the order granted Plaintiff leave to 

file a first amended complaint. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for 

recusal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 28, 2017 

 

 MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 3:17-cv-00007-H-JLB Document 13 Filed 03/28/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3