(PC)Hernandez

(PC)Hernandez v. Constable

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 20212:19-cv-02195California1,784 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CESAR N. HERNANDEZ, No. 2:19-cv-02195 MCE DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER A. CONSTABLE, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff alleges defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they refused to permit him to take his medication for hypertension. Before the court are plaintiff’s motions to recuse the undersigned magistrate judge, for an extension of the discovery deadline, for sanctions, and for the appointment of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, this court denies plaintiff’s motions. MOTION FOR RECUSAL I. Legal Standards Federal law provides that a party may seek recusal of a judge based on bias or prejudice. Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the …

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.