Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00043/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00043-5/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

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARROD MOTEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:24-pc-00043 JLT GSA (PC)

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S 

PROPOSED NOTICE OF MOTION FOR AN 

ADDENDUM (SUPPLEMENT TO 

COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR 

RECUSAL)

(ECF No. 15)

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECUSAL

Plaintiff has filed a “Proposed Notice of Motion for an Addendum.” ECF No. 15 at 1-36. 

To the extent that in it, Plaintiff: (1) requests it be considered along with the original complaint; 

(2) alleges recent violations of right by prison officials, the undersigned and other judges assigned 

to his cases, and (3) requests the undersigned’s recusal from this matter, the filing will be 

construed as a supplement to the complaint and a motion for recusal.1

For the reasons stated below, the supplement will be disregarded as improperly filed. In 

addition, the motion that the undersigned recuse himself will likewise be denied.

1

 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court will be directed to update the description of the filing on the 

docket so that it is consistent with the Court’s construction herein.

Case 1:24-cv-00043-JLT-GSA Document 16 Filed 08/05/24 Page 1 of 6
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

A. SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR RECUSAL

Plaintiff’s supplement to complaint and motion for recusal is a thirty-five-page document 

with twenty-seven pages of exhibits attached to it. ECF No. 15. Rambling throughout, the Court 

distills that Plaintiff is requesting the Court to: (1) consider the allegations in the filing and to 

enjoin certain prison officials to from continuing to retaliate against him (see generally ECF No. 

15); (2) consider the filing as a supplement to his complaint (id. at 12, ¶ 50; 32-33, ¶¶ 4-5); (3)

void its orders that have harmed Plaintiff (id at 31, ¶ 142); (4) add named individuals in the filing 

as defendants in these proceedings (id. at 32-33, ¶¶ 4-5), and (5) require the undersigned to recuse 

himself (id. at 34, ¶ 16).

2

 See generally id. at 1-35.

The Court finds that the threshold concerns in the filing (ECF No.15) are: (1) Plaintiff’s 

request that the Court consider it as a supplement to his original complaint, and (2) Plaintiff’s 

motion that the undersigned recuse himself. If the Court does not grant these two requests, the 

other requests identified herein cannot be reached and considered.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Improper Pleading

Plaintiff’s request to supplement his previously filed complaint must be denied for several 

reasons. First, the filing is not permitted under federal rules. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

7(a) clearly lists all pleadings that a party may file in this Court. Plaintiff’s supplement to his 

complaint and/or “motion for an addendum” is not one of them. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff 

intends that the filing to be a supplement to his original complaint, the Court will disregard it on 

this ground.

Further, in the Court’s recent screening order (ECF No. 14), Plaintiff was clearly 

instructed that if he chose to file an amended complaint that it had to be complete in itself without 

reference to any previously filed complaint. See ECF No. 15 at 5. Plaintiff was also clearly 

instructed that, like any other litigant, he was not exempt from having to follow court rules. See

2

 To the extent that the motion also alleges improprieties of other judges who currently preside 

over this and/or other cases of Plaintiff’s (see, e.g., ECF No. 15 at 2-3, ¶ 7) (alleging impropriety 

of other judges), the undersigned will not address those concerns.

Case 1:24-cv-00043-JLT-GSA Document 16 Filed 08/05/24 Page 2 of 6
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

ECF No. 14 at 4. Despite having been given these clear instructions, the instant addendum does

refer to Plaintiff’s original complaint, and it still requests the Court to consider the original 

complaint along with the instant addendum3 (See ECF No. 15 at 12, ¶ 50; 32-33, ¶¶ 4-5), thus it

fails to comply with the Court’s directives set forth in its screening order.

B. Not a Short and Plain Statement

Next, even if the instant pleading were a proper amended complaint that stood alone and 

independent of the original complaint, it must also be disregarded because once again, as the 

Court found with respect to the original complaint (see ECF No. 15 at 4), this filing fails to 

provide the Court with a short and plain statement of his claims. See generally ECF No. 15. The 

thirty-five pages that make up the body of this filing do not comply with Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 8(a)(1), (d)(1).

C. Failure to Exhaust

The Plaintiff’s addendum and the claims in it must also be disregarded because it is highly 

likely, from an examination of the face of the complaint, that at least some of the allegations

contained in it have not been exhausted as the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires. See 42 

U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a) (exhaustion requirement). The instant addendum was docketed on June 28, 

2024. ECF No. 15 at 1. The litany of violations of right Plaintiff alleges in the addendum largely 

occurred from February 2024 to late June 2024. See id. at 2-22, ¶¶ 1-95. Plaintiff does not state 

in the addendum that he exhausted the claims against the named prison officials, and given the 

time between the most recent alleged violations of right and the filing of the instant document, it 

is highly unlikely that he did exhaust. For example, he refers to an incident allegedly occurring 

on June 24, 2024 (ECF No.15, at 20 paragraph # 86) , yet he signs the instant motion on May 18 

and resends it on June 24. ECF No. 15, at 42. Thus, on the basis of a failure to exhaust, the Court 

will disregard Plaintiff’s request to add the requested addendum to his previously filed complaint.

3

 The Court also notes that in the instant filing, Plaintiff takes issue with the fact that the Court 

has directed him to amend the complaint, ultimately stating that it was improper for it to do so. 

He writes, “I am being compelled to amend my complaint, a tactic evidently employed to buy 

more time and manipulate the proceedings. Despite having clearly articulated a proper claim for 

relief, the persistent nature of [the Court’s] violations suggests a deliberate evasion of 

constitutional guidelines.” ECF No. 15 at 28, ¶ 127.

Case 1:24-cv-00043-JLT-GSA Document 16 Filed 08/05/24 Page 3 of 6
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

D. Recusal Request Must Be Denied

Finally, Plaintiff requests that the undersigned recuse himself from this case. See

generally ECF No. 15 at 25-27, 34, ¶16. In support of this request, Plaintiff alleges that this 

Court has violated various federal laws, canons of judicial ethics and has abused its authority. (see 

generally, ECF No. 15 at 25, ¶¶ 111-14, 122, 127, 129, 138). Plaintiff also alleges that this Court 

has interfered with the denial of his habeas appeals at the state level. Id. at 26-31, 34, ¶¶ 116-118, 

122-24, 129, 138-40 et seq.

To begin, a review of Plaintiff’s request that the undersigned be recused discloses that it

contains no cognizable legal basis. 

“The standard for recusal is ‘whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts 

would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might be reasonably questioned.’” Mayes v. 

Leipzieger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 

321 (9th Cir. 1993)). The judge at whom the motion is directed can determine the matter (see

United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted)), and the recusal 

request can be denied (see United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th 

Cir. 1995)).

The procedural requirements for a motion to disqualify under 28 USC 455 are different 

from those under 28 USC 144. Under section 455, a judge “shall disqualify himself in any 

proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. A motion under section 455 

is addressed to and must be decided by the very judge whose impartiality is being questioned, and 

not by another judge. A motion under section 144 is initially addressed to the judge whose 

impartiality is being questioned. The test for personal bias or prejudice is identical in both of 

these sections. The bias, if any exists, must be from an extrajudicial source and cannot be based 

solely on information gained in the course of the proceedings. See, US v Hernandez, 109 F.3d 

1450 (9th Cir. 1997). Importantly, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a 

bias or partiality motion. 

Here, the gravamen of Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the undersigned is that: 1- he is 

being compelled to amend his complaint (ECF 15, at 28 Paragraph 127), 2- he is being required 

Case 1:24-cv-00043-JLT-GSA Document 16 Filed 08/05/24 Page 4 of 6
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

5

to consolidate “every claim I possess into a singular complaint” (ECF 15, at 31, Paragraph 140), 

3- he is not being provided with “immediate intervention” to address what he asserts is a blatant

disregard by prison officials of his rights and to rectify these grave injustices ((ECF 15, at 7, 

paragraph 26, pg 22, paragraph 99), and 4- ignoring his motions (ECF 15, at 25, paragraph 112). 

However, a judge’s ruling while presiding over a case do not constitute extra-judicial conduct. 

Focus Media, Inc v NBC, 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 2004). In this case, the Court has properly

ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complies with federal rules. See generally

ECF No. 14 (screening order). Plaintiff’s allegations that somehow this request makes the 

undersigned biased and/or unable to preside over this matter is wholly insufficient as a basis for 

recusal. There is nothing in the screening order that indicates bias or impropriety against 

Plaintiff. See generally id. Plaintiff fails to point to specific language in the screening order that 

supports his assertions. 

The Court has thus considered whether Plaintiff’s request that the undersigned be recused 

identifies any ground upon which disqualification would be warranted, as well as whether there is 

any other ground for disqualification, and it finds that no such ground exists. The Court is 

unaware of any circumstance(s) that would cause its impartiality to be reasonably questioned. 

In sum, the allegations of bias on the part of the undersigned, which Plaintiff claims

warrant that he recuse himself, are frivolous and without merit. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request that 

the undersigned be recused will be denied and the matter will not be referred to another judge.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of Court shall update the description of the filing considered herein (ECF 

No. 15) to read: “Supplement to Complaint and Motion for Recusal (Proposed Notice of Motion 

for an Addendum)” on the docket;

2. Plaintiff’s Supplement to Complaint (see generally ECF No. 15) is DISREGARDED 

as improperly filed, and

3. Plaintiff’s motion to recuse the undersigned (see ECF No. 15 at 34, ¶ 16) is DENIED.

Case 1:24-cv-00043-JLT-GSA Document 16 Filed 08/05/24 Page 5 of 6
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

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00043-JLT-GSA Document 16 Filed 08/05/24 Page 6 of 6