(PS) United States of America v. Singh, No. 2:2015cv00287 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/20/15: The IRS summons served upon respondent Raghvendra Singh is enforced. Singh is ordered to appear at the United States Attorney's offices on Aug ust 12, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.. 20 Motion to dismiss counterclaim is granted, and Singhs counterclaim is dismissed without leave to amend. 7 Motion to Stay, 10 Motion to Stay, 11 Motion to Dismiss, 12 Motion to review collection due process, 19 Motion to Quash, 22 Motion to Stay and 26 Motion for recusal denied. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF

(PS) United States of America v. Singh Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:15-cv-287-TLN-EFB PS Petitioner, v. ORDER RAGHVENDRA SINGH, Respondent. 16 17 On May 26, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 18 were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Respondent filed objections on June 4, 20 2015, Petitioner filed a response thereto on June 11, 2015 and respondent filed a reply on June 25, 21 2015. Those filings were considered by the undersigned. 22 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 23 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 24 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 25 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 26 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 27 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 28 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On May 22, 2015, Respondent Singh filed a document entitled “Request to Rescue [sic] 2 Hon. Judges Brennan and Nunley and Other Requests.” ECF No. 27. Therein, Singh requests 3 recusal of the undersigned and the assigned magistrate judge based on his contention that the 4 “ACLU and other Watchdogs observed and predicted . . . [that] Judge Brennan will NEVER rule 5 against IRS; and Judge Nunley will NEVER rule in favor of defendant.” Id. at 1. 6 28 U.S.C. § 455 provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United 7 States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be 8 questioned.” 28 U.S.C § 455(a). He shall also disqualify himself when he has “a personal bias or 9 prejudice concerning a party . . . .” Id. § 455(b)(1). The standard for determining whether 10 impartiality might be reasonably questioned is “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of 11 all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might be questioned.” United States v. 12 Holland, 519 F.2d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008). 13 14 Singh’s conclusory statement fails to demonstrate that recusal is appropriate. Accordingly, his request is denied. 15 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 16 1. The proposed findings and recommendations filed May 26, 2015, are ADOPTED; 17 2. The IRS summons served upon respondent Raghvendra Singh is enforced; 18 3. Singh is ordered to appear at the United States Attorney’s offices at 501 I Street, Floor 19 10, Sacramento, California, before Revenue Agent David Palmer, or his designated 20 representative, on August 12, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.;1 21 4. Singh is ordered to give testimony on that date and time, and to produce for 22 examination and copying the books, checks, records, papers and other data demanded by the 23 summons; 24 25 5. Singh’s motion to discharge the Court’s order to show cause and quash the summons, ECF Nos. 11, 19, is denied; 26 27 28 1 The findings and recommendations recommended that Singh appear before Agent Palmer on July 1, 2015. In light of the timing of this order, Singh is now ordered to appear on August 12, 2015. 2 1 2 6. The government’s motion to dismiss Singh’s counterclaim, ECF No. 20, is granted, and Singh’s counterclaim is dismissed without leave to amend; 3 7. Singh’s motions to stay, ECF Nos. 7, 10, 22, are denied; 4 8. Singh’s motion to review collection due process, ECF No. 12, is denied; and 5 9. Singh’s request for recusal, ECF No. 26, is denied. 6 Dated: July 20, 2015 7 8 9 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.