Amen El v. Schnell

Background

Pharaoh El-Forever Amen El, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of his custody. He also filed a motion asking the court to pause the case while he exhausted some or all of his claims in state court.

Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer ordered Tom Roy to respond to the petition and stated that no further filings would be allowed unless the court authorized them. Amen El then filed a second motion seeking the same pause. Bowbeer denied that motion as repetitive but said Amen El could explain any changed circumstances in his reply to Roy’s response.

Amen El later filed objections to the response order, a motion to disqualify Bowbeer, a brief supporting his first request to pause the case, and a memorandum and affidavit supporting his petition.

Objections

The district court applied a highly deferential standard to Bowbeer’s order because it concerned a nondispositive matter. The court would reverse only if the order was clearly mistaken or contrary to law.

Amen El argued that Roy should respond to his later brief and memorandum rather than only to the petition. The court concluded that Bowbeer reasonably treated the petition as the full statement of Amen El’s claim because he had not filed the brief or memorandum with the petition. The court therefore overruled this objection.

The district court nevertheless treated the objection as a request to permit the additional filings. It granted that request and ordered Bowbeer to consider Amen El’s brief, memorandum, and affidavit. The court also overruled Amen El’s second objection as moot because nothing in Bowbeer’s order indicated that she would fail to decide the request to pause the case before reviewing the petition.

Motion to Disqualify

The court explained that a magistrate judge must step aside when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when she has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.

Amen El relied on Bowbeer’s involvement in other matters involving him and his mother, but he did not allege that she had acted impartially or shown personal bias in those matters. He also argued that Bowbeer had previously been removed or had recused herself from another matter. The court found that the earlier case had instead been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez when she was appointed, and that the reassignment was unrelated to bias.

Amen El also claimed that Bowbeer had failed to recognize his status as a self-represented litigant and had not interpreted his claims generously. The court found that he had not identified when or how Bowbeer had done so and noted examples showing that she had considered the difficulties of litigating without a lawyer while incarcerated. The court further stated that an alleged legal error in interpreting his claims would be addressed through an objection or appeal, not through disqualification.

Finally, Amen El argued that Bowbeer favored Roy by mentioning procedural default. The court rejected that argument, explaining that even if the order could be read as giving Roy direction, it would not show bias. The court stated that whether procedural default bars federal review is an issue the court must consider regardless of Roy’s response.

Disposition

The court overruled Amen El’s objections and affirmed Bowbeer’s Order for Party to Respond. It ordered Bowbeer to consider Amen El’s brief supporting his first motion to pause the case and his memorandum and affidavit supporting the petition. It denied Amen El’s motion to disqualify Bowbeer. This order did not decide the merits of Amen El’s underlying federal habeas petition.