Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00276/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00276-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD VICTOR SEVILLA,

Plaintiff, CV F 06 0276 AWI WMW P 

vs. ORDER RE: FINDINGS & 

 RECOMMENDATIONS (#3)

CAL TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

72-302. 

On March 31, 2006, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending

dismissal of this action as duplicative of an earlier action. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity

to file objections within thirty days. On April 11, 2006, plaintiff filed objections to the findings

and recommendations.

The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal as duplicative on the ground that the

compliant in this action is duplicative of case number CV F 06 0172 REC WMW P. In his

objections, plaintiff fails to address the basis of dismissal - plaintiff does not contend that the

cases are different. Plaintiff does, however, challenge the reference to the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 1:06-cv-00276-AWI-WMW Document 6 Filed 05/30/06 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

2

Specifically, plaintiff refers to 28 U.S.C. § 445, and seeks to have this case assigned to a different

Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff grounds his request on adverse rulings. 

The substantive standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §445 is “[W]hether a reasonable

person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might

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

citing Unites States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986) (quotation omitted). The

alleged bias must stem from and “extrajudicial source.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540

(1994). “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality

motion.” Id. at 555; Poland v. Stewart, 92 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 1996). “[O]pinions formed by the

judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of current proceedings, or

of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a

deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” United States

v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 882 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1012 (1980) (a judge’s

views on legal issues may not serve as a basis for motions to disqualify).

Plainitff’s conclusory allegations of bias fail to establish legally sufficient grounds for

recusal. See Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626-27 (9th Cir. 1993)(concluding that

speculative assertions of invidious motive are insufficient to show judicial bias). The court finds

that there is no basis for referring this action to a different Magistrate Judge. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 73-305,

this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

analysis. 

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on March

31, 2006, are adopted in full; and

Case 1:06-cv-00276-AWI-WMW Document 6 Filed 05/30/06 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

3

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of CV F 06 0172

REC WMW P. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00276-AWI-WMW Document 6 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 3