(PC) Thomas v. Fry

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 OTIS MICHAEL THOMAS, No. 2:19-cv-01041 KJM CKD P 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14) 1.C. FRY, etal., 1S Defendants.

19 Plaintiff has filed a second motion asking that the undersigned recuse. ECF No. 74.

20 | Recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455. District judges are statutorily obligated to recuse | themselves 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). However, judges must recuse “only if the bias or prejudice stems from an | extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding.”

25 | Pau v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation | omitted). Because plaintiff does not identify any adequate basis for recusal and because there is | no basis to reasonably question the undersigned’s impartiality, plaintiff's motion is denied.

28 This order resolves ECF No. 74 1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 DATED: March 30, 2023.

CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE