Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00361/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00361-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

18-CV-361 JLS (LL)

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

MYCHAL ANDRA REED,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-361 JLS (LL)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO REPLACE 

MAGISTRATE (AND CLERK)

(ECF No. 106)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Mychal Andra Reed’s Request to Replace 

Magistrate (and Clerk) (“Mot.,” ECF No. 106). Plaintiff declines to “divulge his specific 

reasoning for said request,” although offers to “do so at this Court[’]s behest.” Id. at 1. He 

adds that his “only endeavor is to receive justice against defendants . . . and to be dealt with 

by an ‘impartial’ jurist who will . . . treat[ him] ‘fairly] in the process, minus bias/

prejudice.” Id. at 2.

Although Plaintiff does not specify whether he brings his Motion under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), his Motion fails under either standard because he fails to 

present any “facts” from which a “reasonable person” could “conclude that the judge’s 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” see Yagman v. Republic Ins. (“Yagman II”), 

987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added) (quoting In re Yagman (“Yagman 

Case 3:18-cv-00361-JLS-DEB Document 107 Filed 02/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

18-CV-361 JLS (LL)

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”), 796 F.2d 1165, 1179 (9th Cir.), amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986), mandamus 

granted by Brown v. Baden, 815 F.2d 575 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, Real v. Yagman, 484 

U.S. 963 (1987)) (citing United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 880–81 (9th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 449 U.S. 1012 (1980)) and recusal is not warranted under either statute based on 

speculation. See, e.g., Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 

1180 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Yagman II, 987 F.2d at 626). The Court therefore DENIES 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion. Plaintiff MAY RENEW his Motion only 

if he can identify specific facts that would cause a reasonable person to question Magistrate 

Judge Lopez’s impartiality.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2020

 

1 A review of the docket indicates that Magistrate Judge Lopez has rejected several submissions by 

Plaintiff as not appropriate for judicial notice, see ECF Nos. 40, 43, 79, 80, 81, and has denied Plaintiff’s 

requests for appointment of counsel, see ECF Nos. 58, 94, 103; however, “[u]nfavorable rulings alone are 

legally insufficient to require recusal . . . , even when the number of such unfavorable rulings is 

extraordinarily high on a statistical basis.” Matter of Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th 

Cir. 1984) (citing In re Int’l Business Machines Corp., 618 F.2d 923, 929–30 (2d Cir. 1980); Botts v. 

United States, 413 F.2d 41, 44 (9th Cir. 1969)).

Case 3:18-cv-00361-JLS-DEB Document 107 Filed 02/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2