(PS) Hedrington v. County of Solano

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Peter L. Fear, No. 2:18-cv-02333-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant.

Orlonzo Hedrington, No. 2:21-cv-00414-KJM-DB Plaintiff, v. County of Solano, et al., 19 Defendants.

20 Orlonz o Hedrington, No. 2:22-cv-00074-KJM-DB 21 Plaintiff, v. David Grant Medical Center, et al., Defendants.

Orlonzo Hedrington, No. 1:22-cv-01425-KJM-DB 25 Plaintiff, ORDER 26 v. Veteran ’s Administration of the United States of America, et al., 1 In case No. 2:18-cv-2333, Orlonzo Hedrington requests the undersigned recuse from | hearing “all” his cases. ECF No. 79. The court interprets that request as applying to all of the | related cases in the caption above.

4 Cases 2:18-cv-2333 and 2:21-cv-0414 are closed, so the recusal request is denied as moot | those cases. With respect to cases 2:22-cv-0074 and 2:22-cv-1425, district judges must recuse | from hearing a case 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 (9th Cir. 1995). But judges have an obligation not to recuse themselves in some | cases; that obligation “is perhaps at its highest” if a party requests recusal after “an adverse ruling | in the course of the action.” United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1198, □□□□□□□ | (E.D. Cal. 2010). Hedrington’s request fits that description. He pursues recusal based on judicial | rulings and decisions in the cases above.

13 The court orders as follows: 14 (1) The court construes the filing at ECF No. 79 in Case No. 2:18-cv-2333 as applying 15 to all of the related cases in the caption above; 16 (2) The request is denied as moot in case Nos. 2:18-cv-2333 and 2:21-cv-0414; and 17 (3) The request is denied in case Nos. 2:22-cv-0074 and 2:22-cv-1425.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 DATED: July 5, 2023. / CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE