Khan v. Payton

Background

Muhammad Khan, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against an officer at San Quentin State Prison. The court had previously dismissed some claims, ordered service of the claims it found legally cognizable, and granted defendants extensions of time to file a dispositive motion.

Khan filed an ex parte request—that is, a request made without the opposing side’s participation in the request—for a different judge. The court treated that filing as a motion for recusal. Khan argued that the court was prejudiced against him because it did not address his opposition to a defense request for an extension and because it had allegedly given defendants repeated opportunities to change the schedule.

Recusal Standard

The court applied the standards in 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Recusal is required when a well-informed, thoughtful reasonable person would question the judge’s impartiality or perceive a significant risk that the judge would decide the case on a basis other than its merits. A federal judge is presumed to be impartial, and the party claiming bias bears a substantial burden to overcome that presumption.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that its decisions to grant defendants’ requests for extensions were not based on bias. When the first extension was granted on July 6, 2023, Khan had not yet filed his opposition; his opposition was filed on July 14, 2023. The court therefore concluded that it had not ignored a filing that was not yet before it.

The court added that, even if it had considered Khan’s opposition before ruling, the opposition would not have defeated the extension request. Defense counsel’s declaration satisfied the local rule governing requests to change a deadline, and no additional evidence was required. The court also found that the circumstances supported an extension because Khan’s own filing indicated that his deposition had not yet occurred. The court concluded that defendants’ later extension requests were timely and supported by good cause.

The court rejected Khan’s claim that defendants had received more scheduling flexibility than he had. It described several instances in which Khan received extensions or additional opportunities to amend his complaint, including opportunities granted after deadlines had expired and the court’s decision to treat a later pleading as an amendment and rescreen it.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman held that Khan’s arguments did not overcome the presumption that the court had been fair and impartial. The motion for recusal was DENIED, and the order terminated Docket No. 69. The court stated that Khan may appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit.