Opinion
2:19-cv-1041 KJM CKD P
03-29-2023
OTIS MICHAEL THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. J.C. FRY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On March 23, 2023, plaintiff filed a second motion asking that the undersigned recuse.
Recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455. Federal judges are statutorily obligated to recuse if their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or if they “have a personal bias or prejudice against a party,” United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566-57 (9th Cir. 1995), as long as “the bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding.” Pau v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation omitted). Essentially, plaintiff seeks recusal solely based on rulings in this case. Because plaintiff fails to identify any adequate basis for recusal, and because there is no basis to reasonably question the undersigned's impartiality, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED plaintiff's motion for recusal (ECF No. 74) is denied.