Fry

(PC) Thomas v. Fry

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 6, 20232:19-cv-01041California219 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1] OTIS MICHAEL THOMAS, No. 2:19-cv-01041 KJM CKD P Plaintiff, Vv. ORDER J.C. FRY, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has filed a motion asking that the undersigned recuse. Recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455. District judges are statutorily obligated to recuse themselves if their 19 “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or if they “have a personal bias or prejudice 20 against a party.” United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566-57 (9th Cir. 1995). However, judges must recuse “only if the bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial 22 || source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding.” Pau v. 23 || Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation omitted). 24 Here, plaintiff moves for recusal solely based on the court’s decisions during this proceeding. 25 Because plaintiff fails to identify any…

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.