Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01680/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01680-21/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 

NATHAN HILL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-01680 DJC AC 

ORDER 

 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion 

to recuse the undersigned based on alleged misconduct. ECF No. 117. 

I. Motion to Recuse 

In support of his motion, plaintiff cites to the denial of his two separate motions for a 

temporary restraining order. See ECF Nos. 14, 39 (Findings and Recommendations). Based on 

the denial of these motions, plaintiff contends that the undersigned is biased against him. Plaintiff 

also requests that the District Judge rule on the motion because of the undersigned’s refusal to 

recuse herself. 

II. Legal Standards 

As an initial matter, the motion for recusal is properly before the undersigned, as the Ninth 

Circuit has “held repeatedly that the challenged judge h[er]self should rule on the legal 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 118 Filed 06/27/24 Page 1 of 3
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 

sufficiency of a recusal motion in the first instance.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 

(9th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1978)). If the 

affidavit is legally insufficient, then recusal can be denied. United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. 

Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995). 

“Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and 

sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or 

prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further 

therein....” 28 U.S.C. § 144. “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall 

disqualify h[er]self in any proceeding in which h[er] impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Under both recusal statutes, the substantive standard is 

“whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Studley, 783 F.2d at 939 (quoting Mayes v. 

Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

III. Analysis 

All of plaintiff’s allegations of bias or prejudice arise out of the undersigned’s rulings in 

this action. However, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or 

partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Recusal “is required ‘only 

if the bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made 

during the course of the proceeding.’” Pau v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 885 

(9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Toth v. TransWorld Airlines, 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

Plaintiff’s allegations of bias are legally insufficient to establish a reasonable question as to the 

undersigned’s impartiality or that a bias or prejudice exists. Therefore, the motion for recusal will 

be denied. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for recusal (ECF No. 

117) is denied. 

 This ruling shall be final if plaintiff does not seek reconsideration of the order by the 

District Judge within fourteen days of being served with this order. L.R. 303(b). If plaintiff seeks 

reconsideration of this order by the district judge, he must file a request and serve a copy of the 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 118 Filed 06/27/24 Page 2 of 3
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 

request on the undersigned. Any such request must specifically designate the ruling, or part 

thereof, objected to and the basis for that objection. Such request must be captioned “Request for 

Reconsideration by the District Court of Magistrate Judge’s Ruling.” L.R. 303(c). 

DATED: June 26, 2024 

Case 2:19-cv-01680-DJC-AC Document 118 Filed 06/27/24 Page 3 of 3