(PC) Stribling v. Kern Valley State Prison et al, No. 1:2018cv01658 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 10 Motion for Disqualification of the Undersigned; ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's February 12, 2019 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations, and Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Direct the Prison to Pay the Filing Fee, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/14/19. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Stribling v. Kern Valley State Prison et al Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON LAMONT STRIBLING, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. Case No. 1:18-cv-01658-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE UNDERSIGNED 17 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT’S FEBRUARY 12, 2019 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DIRECT THE PRISON TO PAY THE FILING FEE 18 (ECF Nos. 9, 10) 14 KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 19 20 21 22 23 I. Introduction Plaintiff Aaron Lamont Stribling is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for court order to make prison pay filing fee 24 with his money. (ECF No. 6.) On January 10, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 25 Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to direct the prison to pay the filing fee 26 (ECF No. 6), be denied. On February 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and 27 Recommendation. (ECF No. 8.) On February 12, 2019, the undersigned issued an order adopting 28 the Findings and Recommendation, denying Plaintiff’s motion to direct the prison to pay the 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 filing fee, and ordering Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee in full or submit a complete 2 application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days from the date of service of the order. 3 (ECF No. 9.) 4 On March 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for disqualification of the undersigned and a 5 motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 10.) 6 II. 7 Motion for Disqualification In his motion, Plaintiff first moves for disqualification of the undersigned. (ECF No. 10.) 8 Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification is properly before the undersigned because the Ninth 9 Circuit has “held repeatedly that the challenged judge himself should rule on the legal sufficiency 10 of a recusal motion in the first instance.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 11 1986); see also Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22, 32 (1922). 12 Requests to disqualify or recuse a district judge are governed by two statutes, 28 U.S.C. 13 §§ 144 and 455. 28 U.S.C. § 144 requires disqualification or recusal of a district judge 14 “[w]henever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient 15 affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice against 16 him or in favor of any adverse party[.]” Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1) require a district 17 judge to disqualify or recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might 18 reasonably be questioned[,]” including “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 19 party[.]” However, under sections 144 and 455(a) and (b)(1), “judicial rulings alone almost never 20 constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion[]” because judicial rulings do not rely on an 21 extrajudicial source and “can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or 22 antagonism required … when no extrajudicial source is involved.” Liteky v. United States, 510 23 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Further, “opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or 24 events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not 25 constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or 26 antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. 27 28 Here, Plaintiff contends that the undersigned should be disqualified because the order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations and denying Plaintiff’s motion 2 1 to direct the prison to pay the filing fee, (ECF No. 9), is an attempt to extort and/or rob Plaintiff 2 by forcing Plaintiff to pay a second $400.00 filing fee or have his case dismissed. (ECF No. 10.) 3 However, as noted above, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis” for a 4 disqualification motion. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Instead, “[a]lmost invariably, [judicial rulings 5 alone] are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.” Id. Further, Plaintiff has not demonstrated 6 that the undersigned harbors any “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair 7 judgment impossible.” Id. Therefore, since Plaintiff has failed to establish that “a reasonable 8 person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the [undersigned’s] impartiality might 9 reasonably be questioned[,]” Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification of the undersigned is denied. 10 United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1543 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 11 III. 12 Motion for Reconsideration In his motion, Plaintiff also moves for reconsideration of the Court’s February 12, 2019 13 order adopting the Findings and Recommendation, denying Plaintiff’s motion to direct the prison 14 to pay the filing fee, and ordering Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee in full or submit a complete 15 application to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days from the date of service of the order. 16 (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff contends that, since he has proof that the prison took money from his 17 account to pay the $400.00 filing fee, his motion to direct the prison to pay the filing fee should 18 have been granted. 19 The Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as being brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 60(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) permits the Court to relieve a party 21 from an order for any reason that justifies relief. Rule 60(b)(6) “is to be used sparingly as an 22 equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary 23 circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation 24 marks and citation omitted). “A party moving for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must demonstrate 25 both injury and circumstances beyond [their] control[.]” Id. (internal quotation marks and 26 citation omitted). Additionally, Local Rule 230(j) requires that, when a party makes a motion for 27 reconsideration, the party must show “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to 28 exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion” and 3 1 “why the facts and circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 2 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 3 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 4 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 5 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks 6 and citation omitted). Therefore, “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 7 disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered 8 by the [C]ourt before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” 9 United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal 10 quotation marks and citation omitted). 11 Here, Plaintiff has failed to present the Court with any new evidence or changes in the law 12 or demonstrate that the Court has committed clear error. Instead, Plaintiff’s motion expresses his 13 disagreement with the Court’s prior decision and repeats arguments already considered by the 14 Court. Therefore, since Plaintiff has not established that there are highly unusual circumstances 15 justifying reconsideration of the Court’s February 12, 2019 order adopting the Findings and 16 Recommendation, denying Plaintiff’s motion to direct the prison to pay the filing fee, and 17 requiring Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee in full or submit a complete application to proceed in 18 forma pauperis within 30 days from the date of service of the order, (ECF No. 9), Plaintiff’s 19 motion for reconsideration is denied. 20 IV. 21 22 Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification of the undersigned and motion for reconsideration, (ECF No. 10), are DENIED. 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ March 14, 2019 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
