1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 NICHOLAS A. UCCI, ) Case No. 2:15-CV-08386-CAS-KES 11 ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. ) MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE PURSUANT 14 LOS ANGELES POLICE ) TO

, 455 15 DEPARTMENT, ET AL., ) ) 16 Defendant ) 17 ) 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff Nicholas A. Ucci filed this action for alleged violations of his constitutional 21 rights pursuant to

on October 27, 2015. ECF No. 1. The case was 22 eventually assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. ECF No. 44. Since 23 filing his initial complaint, Ucci—who is incarcerated and appearing pro se—has filed 24 seven amended complaints attempting to allege facts sufficient to plead civil rights claims. 25 See ECF Nos. 13, 19, 25, 67, 73, 77, 130. Ucci filed his seventh amended complaint, the 26 operative pleading in this case, on May 24, 2019. ECF No. 130 (“seventh amended 27 complaint”). The seventh amended complaint names the City of Los Angeles (“City”), the 28 1 Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”), and eight individual police officers employed 2 by the LAPD as defendants.

3 Defendants, in separate filings, moved to dismiss the seventh amended complaint on 4 July 29, 2019 and August 12, 2019. ECF Nos. 132, 145, 148, 152, 155. Ucci filed an 5 opposition on July 29, 2019, ECF No. 154, to which defendants filed a reply on August 12, 6 2019, ECF No. 157. After ordering supplemental briefing, on November 26, 2019, 7 Magistrate Judge Scott submitted a 39-page report to this Court, pursuant to the provisions 8 of

, recommending that the Court grant defendants’ motion and dismiss 9 Ucci’s 7AC with prejudice. See ECF No. 167 (“R&R”). In response, Ucci filed objections 10 to the R&R on December 19, 2019. See ECF No. 168 (“R&R Objs.”). The next day, on 11 December 20, 2019, Magistrate Judge Scott issued an order construing parts of Ucci’s 12 objections as a motion to disqualify the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

or 13 455, and, pursuant to Local Rule 72-5, referred the request to disqualify to this Court for 14 determination. See ECF No. 169 (“Referral Order”). 15 Having carefully considered Ucci’s arguments, the Court finds and concludes as 16 follows. 17 II. LEGAL STANDARD 18 A judge may be disqualified pursuant to

(whenever “a party to any 19 proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge 20 before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in 21 favor of any adverse party.” The affidavit must set forth “the facts and the reasons for the 22 belief that bias or prejudice exists.”

. Pursuant to

(“Section 23 455”), judges must also disqualify themselves “in any proceeding in which [their] 24 impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

(a). 25 The substantive standard for disqualification is the same under both Sections 144 26 and 455: a judge may be disqualified if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the 27 facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United 28 States v. Studley,

(9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Critically, the 1 alleged bias cannot result from mere disagreement, however vehement, with a judge's 2 rulings; instead, “the alleged bias must stem from an ‘extrajudicial source.’” United States 3 v. Hernandez,

(9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510

, 548 (1994)). “[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced 5 or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not 6 constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism 7 or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. 8 III. DISCUSSION 9 In his objections, Ucci asserts that: “Plaintiff objects to this court hearing this case 10 and moves for a different venue or a jury trial in a different venue with a Judge not affiliated 11 with Los Angeles Judges, Orange County, or San Diego. Preferably San [F]rancisco or 12 Sacramento or a different state.” R&R Objs. at 7. From what the Court can tell, the basis 13 for Ucci’s request for disqualification is the assertion that “[t]he court has clearly 14 demonstrated prejudice” against him by, among other things, granting defendants’ motion 15 to dismiss, failing to adopt his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s prior recommendations, 16 and “limiting discovery” and “obstructing plaintiff[’s] prosecution” of his case. Id. at 5, 6, 17 7. 18 The Court finds Ucci’s motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Scott to be without 19 merit. Disagreements with the “[o]pinions formed by the judge” in ruling upon the 20 proceedings before her, without more, “do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality 21 motion.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; see also Studley,

(noting that a judge's 22 “prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal”). Although, in Ucci’s view, 23 Magistrate Judge Scott has “demonstrated prejudice” against him by denying his discovery 24 and dismissing his prior complaints, R&R Objs. at 7, Ucci’s disagreement with the 25 particulars of Magistrate Judge Scott’s reasoning, or the conclusions she has reached, does 26 not provide grounds for disqualification or a finding of bias. See United States v. Azhocar, 27

(9th Cir. 1978) (“Adverse rulings do not constitute the requisite bias or 28 prejudice of [

]”) (citing Berger v. United States,

(1921)). 1 |] Quite to the contrary, Magistrate Judge Scott’s thorough and carefully-reasoned 39-page 2 ||recommendation assessing the sufficiency of Ucci’s allegations—the eighth version of 3 ||those allegations that she has permitted Ucci to file—demonstrates the seriousness with 4 ||which she has evaluated Ucci’s claims, and the repeated opportunities she has afforded 5 ||Ucci to cure their defects. Ucci accordingly fails to raise any grounds warranting 6 || disqualification. 7 IV. CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, Ucci’s request for disqualification is DENIED. 9 IT ISSO ORDERED. 10 ,, * 11 || DATED: December 23, 2019 Aira Uh. Fryde— 12 —_ 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICE TUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_A-