(PC) Thomas v. Fry

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OTIS MICHAEL THOMAS, No. 2:19-cv-1041 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER J.C. FRY, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 On March 23, 2023, plaintiff filed a second motion asking that the undersigned recuse.

18 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 23 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 plaintiffs motion for recusal (ECF No. 74) is denied.

3 | Dated: March 29, 2023 Cad ) ft 4 by ae 4 CAROLYN K DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE | thom1041.rec(4) 1]