Magee v. Cantil-Sakauye

Background

Ruchell Cinque Magee, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner, filed a federal civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Tani Cantil-Sakauye, identified as California’s Chief Justice, hindered his access to the courts. The opinion also states that Magee alleged that Gavin Newsom, identified as California’s Governor, was involved, although it does not provide further details about those allegations in the portions addressing the disposition.

Magee asked to proceed without paying the filing fee under the federal prisoner-litigation statute. The court had ordered him to explain why his request should not be barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the fee after at least three earlier federal actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim, unless the prisoner faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury.

Filing-fee ruling

The court identified at least three earlier federal actions that appeared to qualify as statutory “strikes” and gave Magee an opportunity to respond. It also informed him that he could avoid dismissal by paying the filing fee by the deadline.

Magee’s response discussed earlier judicial proceedings and asserted that the judicial system had unjustifiably kept him in prison. The court found that he had not paid the filing fee, shown that the identified dismissals did not qualify as strikes, shown that he met the immediate-danger exception, or otherwise shown why the action should not be dismissed.

The court therefore denied Magee’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It dismissed the federal civil-rights action without prejudice to Magee bringing his claims in a new complaint for which he paid the filing fee.

Recusal ruling

Magee also moved for Judge Orrick’s recusal, meaning that he asked the judge to step aside. He alleged bias and prejudice based on asserted new evidence about a 1973 trial, the earlier cases discussed in the order, alleged knowledge of past proceedings, and the application of the prisoner-filing restriction.

The court explained that recusal is required when a reasonable person aware of the facts could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. It denied the motion because Magee’s allegations were conclusory and did not provide facts or reasons showing that the judge was biased or that his impartiality could reasonably be questioned. The court added that issuing rulings under § 1915(g), standing alone, generally does not establish bias.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action without prejudice, denied Magee’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee, and denied his request for recusal. The Clerk was directed to terminate pending motions, enter judgment in favor of the defendants, and close the file.