Khan v. Payton

Background

Muhammad Khan, a state prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against an officer at San Quentin State Prison. The court had rescreened Khan’s first amended complaint, dismissed claims it found legally unavailable, and ordered service of the claims that could proceed. The defendants later filed a motion for summary judgment, and Khan’s opposition was due March 29, 2024.

Khan filed a submission asking to disqualify Judge Freeman under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 and the Northern District of California’s Local Civil Rule 3-14. The court treated it as Khan’s second motion seeking recusal, meaning removal of the judge because of alleged bias or a possible conflict. Khan said the court’s decisions seemed personal and consistently against him. He cited rulings in another matter, the handling of magistrate-judge assignment, directions about contacting defense counsel, discovery rulings, and his belief that the Clerk had assigned all of his cases to Judge Freeman.

Legal standard

The court stated that Sections 144 and 455 use the same standard: whether a reasonable person who knew all the facts would reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. The relevant observer is a well-informed and thoughtful person, not someone unusually suspicious or sensitive. The party claiming bias must overcome the presumption that the court has acted fairly and impartially.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Khan had not identified a decision in this case showing bias or prejudice. It said Khan had an opportunity to consent to magistrate-judge jurisdiction at the beginning of the case but did not do so. It also said he had other ways to contact defense counsel, including correspondence and paying for telephone calls.

The court rejected Khan’s claim that discovery had been denied because of bias. It identified two discovery-related rulings: one granted Khan more time to oppose summary judgment and denied his motion to compel as moot because the parties had reached an agreement about the alleged discovery requests; the other denied a motion to compel because Khan had not met the required conference-before-motion procedure and because his other requests were unjustified, while also granting additional time to file his opposition. The court said those rulings were explained and supported by law and noted that Khan had received generous extensions of time because of discovery issues.

Regarding the assignment of Khan’s cases, the court stated that the Clerk assigns cases under the court’s Assignment Plan and that Judge Freeman had no authority over those assignments.

Disposition

The court held that Khan had not shown that a reasonable person would perceive a significant risk that Judge Freeman would decide the case for a reason other than its merits. It therefore denied the second motion for recusal, terminated Docket No. 81, and stated that Khan may appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit.