1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SERGEY FIRSOV, Case No. 25-cv-03387-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. DISQUALIFICATION

10 JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 14 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Sergey Firsov’s Motion to Disqualify Judge for 14 Cause. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff argues: “Judge violated Amendments 5th and 14th to Constitution 15 because destruction behavior and improper order to show cause without a fair hearing could raise 16 due process concerns. Who will trust the judge who ignoring and not reading documents?” Mot. 17 at 2. Plaintiff argues the undersigned “should recuse himself and move to different court.” Id. 18 Motions to disqualify or recuse a judge fall under two statutory provisions,

144 and

. Section 144 requires a party seeking recusal to file a timely and 20 sufficient affidavit averring that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias 21 or prejudice either against the party or in favor of an adverse party, and setting forth the facts and 22 reasons for such belief.

. Similarly, § 455 requires a judge to disqualify himself 23 “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,”

(a), 24 including where the judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal 25 knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,”

§ 455 (b)(1). Section 455 26 includes additional circumstances in which a judge must disqualify himself, none of which are 27 relevant to the bases Plaintiff lists. See id. § 455 (b)(2)-(5). 1 reasonably be questioned. The only evidence in support of his motion that Plaintiff provides is 2 || that the undersigned denied his application to proceed in forma pauperis and, after Plaintiff failed 3 to pay the filing fee, ordered him to show cause why this case should not be dismissed. Mot. at 1. 4 || “Ordinarily, the alleged bias must stem from an ‘extrajudicial source.’” United States v. 5 Hernandez,

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

, 6 554-56 (1994)). Thus, while judicial rulings may constitute grounds for an eventual appeal, they 7 are not a valid basis for a motion for recusal. See Liteky v. United States,

, 555 8 || (1994); see also Mayes v. Leipziger,

(9th Cir. 1984) (“A judge’s previous 9 adverse ruling alone is not sufficient bias.”); McCoy v. Stronach,

, at *1-2 (E.D. 10 || Cal. Jan. 15, 2021) (denying plaintiff's motion for disqualification based on adverse ruling on 11 motion). Plaintiff also argues the undersigned should recuse himself because the Court ignored 12 || his request for a hearing after denying his in forma pauperis application.

However, while 5 13 Plaintiff has filed such a request in some of his other cases pending in this District (see, e.g., 14 Firsov v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Case No. 25-cv-2841 NC, ECF No. 10; Firsov v. Frontier Airlines, 3 15 Case No. 25-cv-2898 SVK, ECF No. 10). he did not file a request in this case. Plaintiff further a 16 || argues the undersigned should recuse for failure to read Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 3 17 || Mot. at 2. However, the Court did read Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and in a separate S 18 order denies it. Plaintiff additionally asserts that the IFP motion he filed in the public record 19 disclosed his financial information and the Court was obligated to seal it. However, Plaintiff has 20 || not filed a motion to seal or demonstrated that the standards for sealing have been met here. 21 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to disqualify. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: May 19, 2025 25 26 LAA. THOMAS S. HIXSON 27 United States Magistrate Judge 28