Sussman v. San Diego Police Dept.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NANCY SUSSMAN, Case No.: 20cv1085-CAB-LL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. EX PARTE MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF THE MAGISTRATE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, JUDGE et al., Defendants. [ECF No. 47] 18 On July 16, 2020, Plaintiff Nancy Sussman, proceeding pro se, filed an Ex Parte Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Lopez. ECF No. 47. Specifically, Plaintiff Sussman stated that she “object[s] to have Magistrate Lopez for any purpose in this case.”

21 Id. The Court construes the Motion as an Ex Parte Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge Lopez. Notably, Plaintiff’s Motion is merely one sentence and fails to provide any reasons in support of her request. Id. 24 Although Plaintiff does not specify whether she brings her Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 455 or 28 U.S.C. § 144, her Motion fails under either standard because she fails to present any “facts” from which a “reasonable person” could “conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See Yagman v. Republic Ins. (“Yagman II”), 987 F.2d 28 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added) (quoting In re Yagman (“Yagman I”), 796 2d |}1165, 1179 (9th Cir.), amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986), mandamus granted by || Brown v. Baden, 815 F.2d 575 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, Real v. Yagman, 484 U.S. 963 || (1987)) (citing United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 ||U.S. 1012 (1980)). Recusal is not warranted under either statute based on speculation. See, 5 Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2005) || (citing Yagman IT, 987 F.2d at 626). The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs Ex Parte || Motion.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: July 20, 2020 XO 10 DEF 11 Honorable Linda Lopez 1D United States Magistrate Judge