Harris v. Ramirez

Background

Tevin Lee Harris, a California inmate representing himself, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officer B. Ramirez. Harris alleged that an incident on December 21, 2021, supported his claims. The court had previously denied Harris’s request for a temporary restraining order, an emergency form of relief, and later ordered briefing on Harris’s request for a preliminary injunction.

Harris then filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion asking the judge to recuse, or disqualify herself, from the case. The order addresses both motions.

Motion for reconsideration

The court explained that a party must obtain permission before filing a pre-judgment reconsideration motion under Northern District of California Local Rule 7-9. Harris had not first requested that permission, so the court treated his filing as a request for leave to file the reconsideration motion.

The court said Harris could obtain leave only by showing one of the specified grounds: a previously unknown material difference in fact or law, new material facts or a change in law after the earlier order, or the court’s failure to consider material facts previously presented. The court found that Harris relied only on the last ground and had not shown such a failure. It stated that it had considered his pleadings and had correctly found that he did not meet the requirements for a temporary restraining order, particularly the requirement to show a likelihood of success on the merits.

The court identified the problem with Harris’s request as his failure to describe the December 21, 2021 incident specifically enough to show that he was likely to succeed. It rejected Harris’s claim that the denial damaged his case, explaining that his allegations, read generously, were sufficient to state legally recognized claims and require Ramirez to answer. The court also stated that the temporary restraining order ruling did not prevent Harris from succeeding on his preliminary-injunction request if he could provide a persuasive response to the defendants’ arguments.

The court denied Harris’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

Motion for recusal

The court considered Harris’s request under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. The standard under both statutes asks whether a reasonable, well-informed person would question the judge’s impartiality. The court noted that judges are presumed to be impartial and that adverse judicial rulings generally are not enough, by themselves, to require recusal.

Harris based his request on the court’s denial of his temporary restraining order and on his assertion that the judge might show bias in the future. The court found that these were conclusory assertions and that Harris provided no facts showing that a reasonable person would question the judge’s impartiality. It therefore denied the motion for recusal.

Disposition

The court denied both Harris’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and his motion for recusal. The order terminated Docket No. 14. The court also stated that Harris may appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.