Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00287/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00287-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raghvendra Singh
Cross Claimant
United States of America
Cross 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 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

v.

RAGHVENDRA SINGH,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-287-TLN-EFB PS

ORDER

On May 26, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 

were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Respondent filed objections on June 4, 

2015, Petitioner filed a response thereto on June 11, 2015 and respondent filed a reply on June 25, 

2015. Those filings were considered by the undersigned. 

 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Case 2:15-cv-00287-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 07/21/15 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

 On May 22, 2015, Respondent Singh filed a document entitled “Request to Rescue [sic] 

Hon. Judges Brennan and Nunley and Other Requests.” ECF No. 27. Therein, Singh requests 

recusal of the undersigned and the assigned magistrate judge based on his contention that the 

“ACLU and other Watchdogs observed and predicted . . . [that] Judge Brennan will NEVER rule 

against IRS; and Judge Nunley will NEVER rule in favor of defendant.” Id. at 1. 

 28 U.S.C. § 455 provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United 

States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned.” 28 U.S.C § 455(a). He shall also disqualify himself when he has “a personal bias or 

prejudice concerning a party . . . .” Id. § 455(b)(1). The standard for determining whether 

impartiality might be reasonably questioned is “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of 

all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might be questioned.” United States v. 

Holland, 519 F.2d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008).

 Singh’s conclusory statement fails to demonstrate that recusal is appropriate. 

Accordingly, his request is denied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

 1. The proposed findings and recommendations filed May 26, 2015, are ADOPTED; 

 2. The IRS summons served upon respondent Raghvendra Singh is enforced; 

3. Singh is ordered to appear at the United States Attorney’s offices at 501 I Street, Floor 

10, Sacramento, California, before Revenue Agent David Palmer, or his designated 

representative, on August 12, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.;1

4. Singh is ordered to give testimony on that date and time, and to produce for 

examination and copying the books, checks, records, papers and other data demanded by the 

summons; 

5. Singh’s motion to discharge the Court’s order to show cause and quash the summons, 

ECF Nos. 11, 19, is denied; 

 

1

 The findings and recommendations recommended that Singh appear before Agent 

Palmer on July 1, 2015. In light of the timing of this order, Singh is now ordered to appear on 

August 12, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00287-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 07/21/15 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

6. The government’s motion to dismiss Singh’s counterclaim, ECF No. 20, is granted, 

and Singh’s counterclaim is dismissed without leave to amend; 

7. Singh’s motions to stay, ECF Nos. 7, 10, 22, are denied; 

8. Singh’s motion to review collection due process, ECF No. 12, is denied; and 

9. Singh’s request for recusal, ECF No. 26, is denied. 

Dated: July 20, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00287-TLN-EFB Document 32 Filed 07/21/15 Page 3 of 3