United States District Court, D. Oregon
ANN AIKEN, District Judge.
Plaintiff has filed "Objections to Magistrate Thomas M. Coffin's jurisdiction in this case, and request for de novo review of Magistrate Coffin's Order dated 3/31/2015." (#80)
Plaintiff's Motion (#80) is allowed as follows. I have given de novo review to Magistrate Coffin's Order (#77) denying plaintiff's motion to Strike and for default judgment (#75), and affirm the order.
Plaintiff's "Objections" to Magistrate Judge Coffin's jurisdiction in this case is construed as a motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Coffin. Two federal statutes govern recusal, 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. The standard for recusal under either section is the same: "Whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's partiality might be questioned." Taylor v. Regents of the University of California , 993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993). To warrant recusal, judicial bias must stem form an extrajudicial source. Id. "A judge's prior adverse ruling is not a sufficient cause for recusal. Id., citing United States v. Studly , 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986).
Plaintiff has not identified any real or apparent bias stemming from an extrajudicial source that would lead a reasonable person with all of the facts to question Magistrate Judge Coffin's partiality. Therefore, plaintiff's "objection" is denied. However, in deference to plaintiff's objection to Magistrate Coffin, and in the interest of judicial economy, I will decide the pending motions in this matter.
Plaintiff's "Motion to add names of defendants and claims" (#54) is denied for failure to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 15-1© ("An amended or supplemental pleading must reproduce the entire pleading and may not incorporate any part of the prior pleading by reference."). In addition, some of the proposed additional defendants are immune from liability to plaintiff or otherwise not proper defendants, and plaintiff's factual allegations are insufficient to state claims upon which relief can be granted.
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (#57) is denied.
Plaintiff's Second Motion for Default (#79) is denied.
Defendants move the court for an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint or in the alternative to require plaintiff to make a more definite and certain statement of his claims. (#65).
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (#31) consisted of 31 pages and 102 pages of "exhibits." Plaintiff's "Supplemental Complaint" (#36) consisted of an additional 31 pages and 132 pages of "exhibits." These documents alleged a wide variety of claims concerning the conditions of plaintiff's confinement against 42 named defendants and "other unknown ODOC officials."
By Order (#42) filed June 19, 2014, plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was dismissed for failure to meet the minimal pleading requirements of the Federal Rules and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff was advised of the deficiencies of his complaint and allowed 30 days to file an amended complaint.
On July 1, 2014, plaintiff filed a "Second Amended Complaint" (#45),  Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint fails to correct the deficiencies that led to the dismissal of plaintiff's previous complaint. As with plaintiff's previous pleadings, his Second Amended Complaint does not meet the minimal pleading requirements of the federal rules.
Specifically, plaintiff alleges facts but does not necessarily connect those facts to specific individual defendants or explain how the defendants alleged conduct violates a constitutionally protected right. Plaintiff also fails to explain how the numerous federal statutes that he cites apply to his factual allegations or any plausible legal theory would entitle him to recover damages. In addition, plaintiff continues to name the State of Oregon and ...