Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00723-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SERGIO ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORRIS SHEA BRIDGE COMPANY,

Defendant.

No. 1:24-cv-00723 JLT BAM

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

RECUSE

(Doc. 24)

Sergio Alvarez seeks damages against 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.)

Morris-Shea filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). (Doc. 8.) The Court referred the motion to the Magistrate Judge for preparation of 

findings and recommendations. (Doc. 9.)

The Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that recommended that: (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.) The Court adopted the Findings 

and Recommendations, overruled Plaintiff’s objections to removal, denied Plaintiff’s motion to 

remand, granted Morris Shea’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 25 Filed 10/02/24 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

prejudice and with leave to amend. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff timely filed his First Amended Complaint. 

(Doc. 20.)

Plaintiff then filed a motion for recusal of the judge. (Doc. 21.) The magistrate judge 

construed that motion as a request to recuse herself and denied that motion. (Doc. 23.) The 

magistrate judge reasoned: 

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.

***

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 undersigned’s impartiality might 

reasonably be questioned or to establish that a personal bias or 

prejudice exists.

(Doc. 23 at 2–3.) 

Plaintiff then filed a document titled “appeal” that renewed his request for a different 

judge to be assigned to his case. (Doc. 24.) The Court interprets this as a request under Local Rule 

303(c) for reconsideration by the undersigned of the magistrate judge’s denial of the request for 

recusal. To prevail on such a motion, Plaintiff must show that the magistrate judge’s decision was 

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Local Rule 303(f); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Latronica v. 

Lynch, No. 1:16-CV-01352-LJO-SAB, 2016 WL 10654059, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2016). 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 25 Filed 10/02/24 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

Plaintiff fails to meet this burden. The magistrate judge set forth the correct standards of law, 

including the rule that generally requires as a basis for recusal something other than the rulings of 

the challenged judge. Plaintiff has not pointed to any such basis. Thus, the request for 

reconsideration is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2024 

Case 1:24-cv-00723-JLT-BAM Document 25 Filed 10/02/24 Page 3 of 3