Sussman v. San Diego Police Dept.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Nancy Sussman filed a one-sentence ex parte motion for recusal of the assigned Magistrate Judge without providing any supporting facts or reasons. The court denied the motion, finding it failed to meet the legal standards for recusal under either 28 U.S.C. § 455 or 28 U.S.C. § 144.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge“The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for judicial recusal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, recusal is required if a reasonable person would question the judge's impartiality based on specific facts. Under 28 U.S.C. § 144, a party must file a declaration stating facts showing bias. The order notes the plaintiff's motion was a single sentence with no facts. Citing Yagman v. Republic Ins. and Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct., the court correctly determined that speculation or a bare objection is insufficient to warrant recusal. The decision follows directly from the cited authorities and the lack of factual basis in the motion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly identifies the applicable statutes (28 U.S.C. § 455 and § 144), cites binding Ninth Circuit precedent establishing the 'reasonable person' standard and the requirement for specific facts, and applies that standard to the record (a one-sentence motion with no facts). The reasoning directly addresses the deficiency in the plaintiff's filing.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NANCY SUSSMAN, Case No.: 20cv1085-CAB-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. EX PARTE MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF THE MAGISTRATE 14 SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, JUDGE et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 47] 16 17 18 On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff Nancy Sussman, proceeding pro se, filed an Ex Parte 19 Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Lopez. ECF No. 47. Specifically, Plaintiff 20 Sussman stated that she “object[s] to have Magistrate Lopez for any purpose in this case.” 21 Id. The Court construes the Motion as an Ex Parte Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge 22 Lopez. Notably, Plaintiff’s Motion is merely one sentence and fails to provide any reasons 23 in support of her request. Id. 24 Although Plaintiff does not specify whether she brings her Motion under 28 U.S.C. 25 § 455 or 28 U.S.C. § 144, her Motion fails under either standard because she fails to present 26 any “facts” from which a “reasonable person” could “conclude that the judge’s impartiality 27 might reasonably be questioned. See Yagman v. Republic Ins. (“Yagman II”), 987 F.2d 28 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added) (quoting In re Yagman (“Yagman I”), 796 2d 1 |}1165, 1179 (9th Cir.), amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986), mandamus granted by 2 || Brown v. Baden, 815 F.2d 575 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, Real v. Yagman, 484 U.S. 963 3 || (1987)) (citing United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 4 ||U.S. 1012 (1980)). Recusal is not warranted under either statute based on speculation. See, 5 Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2005) 6 || (citing Yagman IT, 987 F.2d at 626). The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs Ex Parte 7 || Motion. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: July 20, 2020 XO 10 DEF 11 Honorable Linda Lopez 1D United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28