(PS) Narayan v. County of Sacramento

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PRAKASH NARAYAN, No. 2:19-cv-00466-TLN-CKD PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., (ECF No. 48.) Defendants. 16 17 I. Introduction Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Prakash Narayan’s motion to disqualify the undersigned. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff argues that by misapplying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the court became an “accessory after the fact.” (Id. at 3.) Because plaintiff’s argument is premised on a misunderstanding of the Federal Rules regarding waiver and timing to file responsive pleadings, the court addresses those issues in some depth. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s motion is denied.1 25

1 Federal Magistrate Judges have the authority rule on motions to disqualify themselves. Dev v. Donahoe, 668 F. App'x 815, 816 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The Magistrate Judge did not err in denying Dev’s motion to disqualify himself.”). II. Procedural History …