1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 ALLISON BARTON RICE, Case No. 19-cv-04250-LB

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

13 v. DISQUALIFICATION

14 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Re: ECF No. 66 FRANCISCO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 INTRODUCTION 18 The plaintiff moved to disqualify the undersigned on the ground that the record shows an 19 actual or perceived bias.1 The court can decide the motion without oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. 20 L. R. 7-1(b). The court denies the motion. 21 22 GOVERNING LAW 23 A judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably 24 questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); Reddy v. Nuance Commc’n, Inc., No C 11-05632 PSG, 2012 WL 25 6652490, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2012) (setting forth the standards applied in this order). 26 27 1 Mot. – ECF No. 66. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations 1 Because the goal of § 455(a) is “to avoid even the appearance of partiality,” recusal can be 2 appropriate even when there is no actual partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 3 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988) (cleaned up). The inquiry is “whether a reasonable person with 4 knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be 5 questioned.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). The 6 reasonable person is not “hypersensitive or unduly suspicious, but rather is a well-informed, 7 thoughtful observer.” Id. at 914 (cleaned up). If the reasonable person would not find a basis for 8 partiality, a judge has an obligation to participate in the cases he is assigned. Id. at 912. The 9 standard for recusal must not be so broadly construed that recusal becomes “mandated upon the 10 merest unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or prejudice.” Id. at 913 (cleaned up). 11 A judge also must recuse himself “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 12 party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. 13 § 455(b)(1). 14 ANALYSIS 15 The plaintiff moves for recusal because, in sum, he is concerned that the previous rulings in 16 the case reflect a bias against him. But the rulings were based on the parties’ filings in the 17 proceedings, and that is not a ground for recusal. Reddy, 2012 WL 6652490, at *1 (citing Liteky v. 18 United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (other citation omitted)). 19 The plaintiff also is concerned that because he filed a complaint of judicial misconduct 20 regarding the undersigned, it is “not reasonable to believe that [the undersigned] could continue in 21 this case without harboring some animosity” and thus could not “continue this case . . . with 22 impartiality.”2 This is not a ground for recusal. In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th 23 Cir. 2004) (“Absent some evidence of real bias, we are not prepared to infer bias lest we open the 24 door to misuse of the judicial misconduct complaint process as a means of removing a disfavored 25 judge from a case.”). 26 27 1 The court appreciates the plaintiffs respectful tone in his motion and assures him that it will 2 || continue to take his arguments seriously.° 3 4 CONCLUSION 5 The court denies the motion to disqualify. This disposes of ECF No. 66. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: January 5, 2021 LAE 8

LAUREL BEELER

9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

15

16

17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || 445).