United States District Court, D. Arizona
HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before this Court are: Plaintiffs' Notice to Respond and
Amendanment (sic) to Complaint which this Court elects to
treat as a motion to recuse (Doc. 6), and Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint (Doc. 5), which the Plaintiffs have
submitted in Response to the Court's Order dismissing
their previous complaint in this action (Doc. 4). The Court
rules on those motions as follows:
extent Plaintiffs' Notice to Respond (Doc. 6) is intended
to be a motion to recuse the motion is denied. Plaintiff's
motion is based on this Court's rulings either in this
case, or previous cases brought by Plaintiff involving the
same subject matter. It thus provides no justification for
recusal. Disqualifying bias or prejudice must stem from
something other than “information and beliefs”
the judge “acquired while acting in his or her judicial
capacity.” United States v. McTiernan, 695
F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v.
Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 853 n.6 (9th Cir. 1982));
accord United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d
794, 799 (9th Cir. 2000). A judge's adverse rulings
during the course of proceedings in which disqualification is
sought, or in related proceedings, do not constitute a valid
basis for the judge's disqualification. Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1995); In re
Marshall, 721 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus,
Plaintiffs' argument that this Court demonstrated bias
when it referred to Judge Logan's reasoning for
dismissing their previous action as frivolous is not a basis
on which they can seek to recuse this Court.
event, in its previous Order this Court ordered the
Plaintiffs to set forth the basis on which this Court had
jurisdiction over their claims against Defendants. This Court
is a court of limited jurisdiction and just because
Plaintiffs may have a basis for some claims based on state
law against Defendants does not mean that they have a basis
for bringing such claims in this Court. Plaintiffs have
failed to make allegations suggesting that either (1) their
attempt to have their electricity reconnected, (2) their
claim for trespass against the cooperative, or (3) a claim
for damages resulting from the termination of their
electrical service amounts to a claim based on federal law.
They have further failed to make allegations sufficient to
suggest that they have diversity jurisdiction over the
set forth, as the basis for their jurisdictional claim, the
statute that specifies that “the district court in
which a case under title 11 (bankruptcy) is commenced or is
pending shall have exclusive jurisdiction” over the
property of a bankruptcy estate. Nevertheless,
Plaintiffs' bankruptcy action that involves the
Defendants as debtors is over and Plaintiffs have filed an
appeal with the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. This Court granted Plaintiffs'
in forma pauperis request to bring such an appeal.
Once Plaintiffs have completed their case in the bankruptcy
court and filed their appeal with the BAP, the BAP has
jurisdiction of these issues. 28 U.S.C. § 158(c). This
Court does not have jurisdiction to hear either their
bankruptcy appeal or further claims against the same
Defendants for which there is no federal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs in their Response acknowledge that they are
raising these very issues at the BAP (Doc. 6 at 3-4).
Court has previously explained this to Plaintiffs and invited
them to submit an amended complaint making appropriate
allegations that would suggest that this Court has
jurisdiction to hear this matter. See (Doc. 4).
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to plausibly allege a
basis on which this Court would have jurisdiction over their
claims. In fact it is nearly identical to the previously
dismissed complaint. “The district court's
discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where
plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.”
Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of Lake Traverse Indian
Reservation, N.D. & SD. v. United States, 90 F.3d
351, 355 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Allen v. City of
Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990));
see also Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885
F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Leave to amend need not
be given if a complaint, as amended, is subject to
dismissal”). Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is
therefore dismissed without leave to amend.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint filed February 27, 2017 (Doc. 5) is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Notice (Doc.
6) to the extent the Court treats it as a motion to recuse is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court terminate
this matter and enter judgment accordingly.
 It does not appear that
Plaintiffs' notice was brought pursuant to either 28
U.S.C. § 455 or 28 U.S.C. § 144 although the
Plaintiffs do suggest that the Court's actions
demonstrate bias in favor of criminal activity which ...