Raiser v. San Diego County

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, Case No.: 19cv751-GPC(KSC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR RECUSAL 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al, [Doc. No. 89] 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal. [Doc. No. 89.] In this Motion, 18 plaintiff argues that the undersigned Magistrate Judge should recuse from this case. 1 19 The main reason for the Motion is that plaintiff does not like prior rulings on discovery, 20 scheduling, and other matters. In addition, plaintiff does not like the Chambers Rules for 21 resolving discovery disputes, because he believes they are too complex and have resulted 22 in defense counsel turning discovery into a game. 23 Based on statements made in his Motion, it is also apparent plaintiff has reviewed 24 metadata embedded in Court documents and makes unfounded and unsupported 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff’s Motion also states that the undersigned Magistrate Judge indicated during the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference that “she would have to recuse.” [Doc. 28 1 accusations based on speculation that clerical and other staff employed by the Court are 2 routinely drafting and entering orders on their own without the approval of any of the 3 judges assigned to cases. In this regard, plaintiff’s Motion includes baseless conspiracy 4 theories that judges have “given their electronic signatures to staff [] effectively mak[ing] 5 them judges;” “judges are allowing their staff and central staff to issue rulings and orders 6 in plaintiff’s cases without being aware what is going on;” and judges are being “duped” 7 and “lied to” by their staff who “hate” plaintiff and cause the judges to be biased against 8 him. [Doc. No. 89-1, at pp. 3-4.] The Court will simply not countenance any such 9 meritless and untrue allegations. Contrary to plaintiff’s baseless allegations, the staff 10 members whose names can be seen in the metadata have only had some ministerial or 11 other clerical involvement in processing Court documents. For example, the Court is 12 aware that one of the staff members whose name is shown in the metadata was only 13 responsible for creating a Word template or form that is used to make it easier to type the 14 caption when drafting a court order.2 15 With respect to recusal, Title 28, United States Code, Section 455(a) states as 16 follows: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify 17 himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 18 28 U.S.C. § 455. Some factors are “not ordinarily sufficient to require a § 455(a) 19 recusal.” Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of California, 428 F.3d 1175, 1178– 20 79 (9th Cir. 2005). Factors considered insufficient to require recusal include “prior 21 22 23 24 2 In addition to his unfounded and unsupported accusations of inappropriate conduct 25 in this case, plaintiff’s Motion makes extraneous, irrelevant, and speculative allegations of misconduct in other cases. These matters are not properly before this Court and will 26 not be addressed herein. In connection with these allegations, plaintiff requests that “the 27 presiding/chief judge of this court” review his Motion and the other cases cited therein. This request is denied. 28 ] rulings in the proceeding” and “[rJumor, speculation, beliefs, conclusions, innuendo, 2 || suspicion, opinion, and similar non-factual matters.” Id. 3 “Absent a factual showing of a reasonable basis for questioning his or her 4 ||impartiality, or allegations of facts establishing other disqualifying circumstances, a judge 5 || should participate in cases assigned. Conclusory statements are of no effect. Nor are [a 6 || litigant’s] unsupported beliefs and assumptions. Frivolous and improperly based 7 || suggestions that a judge recuse should be firmly declined.” Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 8 || 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 9 Here, plaintiff has not presented any factual basis or evidence that would 10 || necessitate a recusal in this case. First, the Court’s prior rulings that plaintiff considers 11 || unfair or unfavorable to him are not a valid basis to disqualify a judge from a case. 12 ||Second, the other reasons plaintiff has cited is his Motion for Recusal are all based on 13 || unsupported and unfounded speculation rather than facts or evidence. In other words, no 14 || disqualifying circumstances have been presented, so the Court finds that recusal in this 15 || case would not be appropriate. 16 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for 17 || Recusal is DENIED for failure to present any facts or evidence indicating the 18 || undersigned Magistrate Judge’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. 19 || § 455(a). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: January 13, 2021 lj Ui “y) 22 WU LA _———_ 73 Hori. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28