Musgrove v. Hanifin
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Musgrove v. Hanifin (2025-04-23) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Irvin Musgrove filed three motions for recusal arguing that the judge was biased because she dismissed his Unruh Civil Rights Act claim and relied on defense counsel's arguments. The court denied all three motions, holding that adverse rulings do not constitute the extrajudicial bias required for recusal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motions for Recusal (Dkts. 214, 216, 217)“Because Plaintiff does not point to any facts that would lead one to reasonably question the undersigned’s impartiality, motions for recusal [Dkts. 214, 216, 217] are DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the legal standard that recusal is not required based on rulings made during the course of the proceeding. The plaintiff's arguments were entirely based on the judge's substantive legal decisions (dismissing the Unruh claim and accepting defense counsel's position on venue/procedure). Under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and Ninth Circuit precedent, such 'adverse rulings' do not demonstrate the kind of extrajudicial bias or personal prejudice that would lead a reasonable person to question the judge's impartiality. The court's conclusion follows directly from the cited authorities and the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the plaintiff's arguments. It correctly identifies that the plaintiff's basis for recusal is solely the judge's adverse rulings. It cites the correct Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authorities establishing that such rulings do not constitute the extrajudicial bias required for recusal. The reasoning is complete for the specific issue presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Irvin Musgrove, Case No.: 20cv614-JO-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF 13 v. IRVIN MUSGROVE’S MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL 14 Hanifin et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 On December 7, 2022, December 13, 2022, and January 18, 2023, Plaintiff Irvin 21 Musgrove filed motions for recusal of the undersigned. Dkts. 214, 216, 217. Plaintiff 22 bases these motions on the Court’s dismissal of his claim: “Then you proceeded to team 23 with Atty [sic] Hamilton again by attacking the Unruh Civil Rights Act as one of my causes 24 of action, as you two determined that it wasn’t fitting for my case, when you both were 25 TOTALLY WRONG.” Dkt. 214 at 2; “In this case, only the Plaintiff’s case has been 26 wrongfully stripped of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which was a legitimate causes [sic] of 27 action that Judge Ohta wrongfully claimed was improper and the proper filing procedure 28 (which Judge Ohta took the defense Atty’s [sic] flawed expertise for as gospel, by 1 || wrongfully ruling” on Plaintiff's claim. Dkt. 216 at 3-4; “At the Hearing on 09/29/2022, 2 || JO [sic] made a ruling that I filed my case in the inappropriate place strictly on the word 3 the defense Atty [sic] Barbara Hamilton, when in fact, the Fair Housing & Equal 4 Opportunity (FHEO), which is under Housing & Urban Development (HUD) [sic]...She 5 ||[] removed the Unruh Civil Rights Act as one of my Causes of Action[.]” Dkt. 217 at 2. 6 The Supreme Court has recognized that due process confers the right to an impartial 7 || and disinterested judge. See Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980). A judge 8 should recuse herself when “the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally 9 tolerable.” Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975). 28 U.S.C. § 455 further instructs 10 a federal judge must recuse herself from any proceeding in which her “impartiality 11 might reasonably be questioned” or if she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 12 || party. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 455 “require recusal only if the 13 or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made 14 || during the course of the proceeding.” Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 15 || 1999) (quoting Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988)). 16 Plaintiff has not identified any grounds for a reasonable person to question the 17 || undersigned’s bias, personal prejudice, or partiality. Plaintiff's arguments for recusal hinge 18 ||solely on the Court’s adverse ruling, which is not sufficient to demonstrate that this judge 19 a bias or prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source. Because Plaintiff does not 20 || point to any facts that would lead one to reasonably question the undersigned’s impartiality, 21 motions for recusal [Dkts. 214, 216, 217] are DENIED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: February 14, 2023 24 25 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 26 United States District Judge 27 28