Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sergio Alvarez
Plaintiff
Morris Shea Bridge Company
Defendant

Document Text:

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

SERGIO ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORRIS SHEA BRIDGE COMPANY,

Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RECUSAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(Doc. 21)

Plaintiff Sergio Alvarez seeks damages against Defendant 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.) Plaintiff objected to 

removal. (Doc. 7.) On June 26, 2024, Morris-Shea filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 8.) The motion was referred to the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge for preparation of findings and recommendations. (Doc. 9.)

On August 5, 2024, the undersigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 

Recommendations that recommended (1) Plaintiff’s objections to removal be overruled and, as 

construed, Plaintiff’s motion for remand be denied, (2) Morris-Shea’s motion to dismiss be 

granted, and (3) Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. 

(Doc. 15.) On August 27, 2024, the district court adopted the Findings and Recommendations, 

overruled Plaintiff’s objections to removal, denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand, granted MorrisCase 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 23 Filed 09/16/24 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

Shea’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice and with leave to 

amend. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 29, 2024. (Doc. 20.)

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a new judge filed on August 30, 2024. 

(Doc. 21.) In his motion, Plaintiff asks for a new judge because he believes “this Judge is being 

prejudice” and is “taking the defendant side and not really [seeing] all the evidence and 

situation.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff also feels that he is “not getting treated fairly.” (Id.)

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 F.3d at 1147 (quotation marks and 

citation omitted). “Adverse findings do not equate to bias.” Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147.

While it is unclear if Plaintiff seeks a new magistrate judge, a new district judge, or both, 

Plaintiff is informed that a motion to disqualify a judge must be decided by the judge whose 

impartiality is being questioned. In re Bernard, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing United 

States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 868, 868 (9th Cir. 1980)). To the extent Plaintiff seeks disqualification 

of the assigned magistrate judge, the undersigned will address Plaintiff’s motion.

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 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 23 Filed 09/16/24 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

undersigned’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or to establish that a personal bias or 

prejudice exists. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for recusal of the magistrate judge (Doc. 21) is 

HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 23 Filed 09/16/24 Page 3 of 3