Musgrove

Musgrove v. Hanifin

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 15, 20233:20-cv-00614California538 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Irvin Musgrove, Case No.: 20cv614-JO-BLM

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF

v. IRVIN MUSGROVE’S MOTIONS

FOR RECUSAL

Hanifin et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 On December 7, 2022, December 13, 2022, and January 18, 2023, Plaintiff Irvin Musgrove filed motions for recusal of the undersigned. Dkts. 214, 216, 217. Plaintiff bases these motions on the Court’s dismissal of his claim: “Then you proceeded to team with Atty [sic] Hamilton again by attacking the Unruh Civil Rights Act as one of my causes of action, as you two determined that it wasn’t fitting for my case, when you both were TOTALLY WRONG.” Dkt. 214 at 2; “In this case, only the Plaintiff’s case has been wrongfully stripped of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which was a legitimate causes [sic] of action that Judge Ohta wrongfully claimed was improper and the proper filing procedure (which Judge Ohta took the defense Atty’s [sic] …

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.