Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

SERGIO ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORRIS SHEA BRIDGE COMPANY,

Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-00723 JLT BAM

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO 

RECUSE 

(Doc. 37)

Sergio Alvarez seeks damages against Morris-Shea Bridge Company, Inc. for alleged 

retaliation. (See generally Doc. 1-3.) Morris-Shea removed the action from Fresno County 

Superior Court based on diversity of citizenship. (Doc. 1.)

On August 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for recusal of the assigned judge. (Doc. 21.) 

The magistrate judge construed that motion as a request to recuse herself and denied that motion. 

(Doc. 23.) The magistrate judge reasoned: 

A magistrate judge must disqualify herself if her “impartiality 

might be reasonably,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if she “has a personal 

bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of 

disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 

455(b)(1). “[J]udicial rulings or information acquired by the court 

in its judicial capacity will rarely support recusal.” United States v. 

Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Liteky v. 

United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). The objective test for 

determining whether recusal is required is whether a reasonable 

person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the 

judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Johnson, 610 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 39 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 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

2

F.3d at 1147 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Adverse 

findings do not equate to bias.” Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147.

***

Plaintiff’s statements are not sufficient to demonstrate personal bias 

or prejudice by the undersigned. Plaintiff’s unspecified allegations 

regarding the undersigned’s prejudice, with no explanation, cannot 

support a finding that the undersigned holds any personal bias or 

prejudice concerning Plaintiff or any other party. Plaintiff’s 

assertions of prejudice or unfairness appear to be premised on 

judicial rulings in this action. However, judicial rulings, in and of 

themselves, do not constitute bias or partiality. See Johnson, 610 

F.3d at 1147; Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555 (“[J]udicial rulings alone 

almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality 

motion.”). Plaintiff’s conclusory statements and allegations are 

insufficient to establish that the undersigned’s impartiality might 

reasonably be questioned or to establish that a personal bias or 

prejudice exists.

(Doc. 23 at 2–3.) Plaintiff then filed a document titled “appeal” that renewed his request for a 

different judge to be assigned to his case. (Doc. 24.) The Court interpreted this as a request under 

Local Rule 303(c) for reconsideration, which was denied by written order issued October 2, 2024 

(Doc. 25.) 

On November 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed another request to change the assigned judge 

because “she doesn’t want [any]one to tell her she is doing her job wrong.” (Doc. 37.) Though it 

remains unclear which assigned judge(s) Plaintiff is challenging, the request is without merit, as it 

again seeks recusal based only upon adverse judicial rulings. For this reason, the motion is 

DENIED. Plaintiff is warned that further motions of this nature will be summarily denied or 

disregarded. He is further warned that, even though he is proceeding pro se, multiplying the 

proceedings by filing repetitive, meritless motions may be grounds for the imposition of 

sanctions, which may include monetary, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 39 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 2