Seifert

Seifert v. Pritchard

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 27, 20251:24-cv-01097California2,758 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALEXANDRA SEIFERT, Case No.: 1:24-cv-01097-KES-CDB Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

AND AMENDED MOTION FOR RECUSAL

v. AND DISQUALIFICATION

KENNETH GEORGE PRITCHARD, et al., (Docs. 26, 28)

Defendants.

16 Plaintiff Alexandra Seifert is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, 18 U.S.C. § 1018, 28 U.S.C. § 454, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. (Doc. 1). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for recusal and disqualification of the undersigned, filed on April 29, 2025. (Doc. 26). Plaintiff filed an amended motion on May 19, 2025. (Doc. 28). I. Governing Law A. Recusal 28 U.S.C. § 144 provides: Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.