Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01375/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01375-4/pdf.json

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

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 On August 21, 2023, this court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and 

18 recommendations in full. Order, ECF No. 52. Plaintiff Kevin B. Johnson has filed a “Notice of 

19 Trespass” and states he has not received any legal mail and thus has not had the opportunity to 

20 object to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. Notice, ECF No. 54. In that 

21 notice, plaintiff moves for recusal of the magistrate judge. Id. at 4. 

22 First, plaintiff has had the opportunity to and did object to the findings and 

23 recommendations. See Objs., ECF No. 48; Order Granting Mot. Extension of Time to File Objs., 

24 ECF No. 47. 

25 Second, plaintiff’s motion for recusal proffers no basis for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 

26 or 455. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a magistrate judge must “disqualify himself [or herself] in any 

27 proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. 

28 § 455(a). A judge “shall also disqualify himself [or herself]” when the judge “has a personal bias 

Kevin B. Johnson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Unknown FBI Agents, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01375-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

Case 2:22-cv-01375-KJM-SCR Document 55 Filed 09/25/23 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 or prejudice concerning a party . . . .” Id. § 455(b)(1). “The substantive standard for recusal 

2 under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455 is the same: whether a reasonable person with 

3 knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be 

4 questioned.” United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal marks 

5 and citation omitted). “Ordinarily, the alleged bias must stem from an ‘extrajudicial source.’” Id.

6 at 1454 (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554–56 (1994)). In Liteky, the Supreme 

7 Court explained, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or 

8 partiality motion.” 510 U.S. at 554–56. “[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts 

9 introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, 

10 do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated 

11 favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. at 555. 

12 Plaintiff argues the magistrate judge trespassed and broke the law, is biased, prejudiced, 

13 unfair, and impartial, has displayed “impropriety [and] racism,” and “is not acting as a Judicial 

14 official.” Notice at 2–4. He alleges the magistrate judge did not “stamp the seal of the court on 

15 the summons [and] return it to plaintiff,” and intentionally delayed sending plaintiff mail 

16 regarding his cases. Id. at 2–4. All of these purported actions are events that occurred in the 

17 course of this action; plaintiff has not presented any facts or arguments tending to show the 

18 magistrate judge harbored any bias or prejudice due to extrajudicial sources. Additionally, the 

19 court’s docket shows the magistrate judge directed the Clerk of Court to issue summons, 

20 Summons Order, ECF No. 27, the Clerk issued summons, Summons, ECF No. 28, and both the 

21 order and summons were served on plaintiff. The court’s docket also shows plaintiff has been 

22 served with all the court’s orders, including the magistrate judge’s orders. There is no evidence 

23 of undue delay on the court’s docket. Plaintiff has not shown recusal is warranted. The motion is 

24 denied. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for all further pretrial proceedings. 

25 To the extent plaintiff claims he has not been receiving the court’s orders, see ECF 

26 No. 53; Notice, the Clerk of Court is directed to serve plaintiff a copy of this order and re-serve 

27 the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations on ECF No. 45, and this court’s order 

28 adopting the findings and recommendations on ECF No. 52. 

Case 2:22-cv-01375-KJM-SCR Document 55 Filed 09/25/23 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 This order resolves ECF No. 54. 

2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

3 DATED: September 21, 2023. 

4 

Case 2:22-cv-01375-KJM-SCR Document 55 Filed 09/25/23 Page 3 of 3