John L. MILLER v. D.A. WHITE, et al. Case No. CV 14-7543-GW (KK) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed November 03, 2020 Counsel John L. Miller, Lancaster CA, for John L. Miller. Kelli Marie Hammond, Office of the Attorney General California Department of Justice, Sacramento CA, for D.A. White. Gee, Dolly M., United States District Judge Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS — ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S THIRD MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DISTRICT JUDGE GEORGE WU *1 On October 21, 2020, Plaintiff John L. Miller filed a third motion to disqualify the Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge [Doc. # 180], which was referred to this Court for determination pursuant to General Order 19-03 and Local Rule 72-5 [Doc. # 181]. Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) contending that Judge Wu is biased against him because Plaintiff is an incarcerated felon. This is yet another of Plaintiff's many motions seeking to disqualify judges who have ruled against him. [See Doc. ## 49, 73, 78, 83, 96, 146, 153, 178.] I. LEGAL STANDARD The Court set forth the standard for motions to disqualify a judge in its previous two orders and need not repeat it here. [Doc. ## 78, 96.] II. DISCUSSION Plaintiff asserts, for a third time, that Judge Wu should be disqualified from hearing his case. Plaintiff claims that Judge Wu improperly affirmed a discovery order issued by the Honorable Kenly Kato, United States Magistrate Judge, based on his own bias against Plaintiff. In her May 27, 2020 discovery order, Magistrate Judge Kato granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's second motion to compel discovery, wherein Plaintiff contended that defense counsel's preparation of interrogatory responses was improper and that Defendants should be compelled to respond in their own words, rather than through counsel. [Doc. # 114.] Magistrate Judge Kato held that the assistance of counsel is clearly contemplated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, which governs interrogatories, and ordered Defendants to re-serve signed interrogatory verifications that Plaintiff asserted that he had not received. Id. On June 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Kato's discovery order, contending that she had abused her discretion. [Doc. # 121.] On June 24, 2020, Judge Wu issued an order affirming the May 27, 2020 discovery order, holding that Magistrate Judge Kato's conclusion, that the assistance of counsel is contemplated under Rule 33 and citing to Exxon Corp. v. F.T.C., 384 F. Supp. 755, 764 (D.D.C. 1974) (finding plaintiff's argument that interrogatories were improperly prepared by counsel even though they were signed by the responding party “must be deemed frivolous”), was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. [Doc. # 126.] Plaintiff now contends that Judge Wu's June 24, 2020 order demonstrates his bias against Plaintiff. Plaintiff asserts, without support, that Judge Wu would not have permitted counsel to respond to interrogatories directed at a client in a non-prisoner lawsuit, but has permitted as much here because of his bias against Plaintiff as an incarcerated felon. [Doc. # 180 at 9.] Again, however, Plaintiff provides no basis for this Court to find that Judge Wu is biased against him because he is an incarcerated felon. As this Court has previously explained on two prior occasions [see Doc. ## 78, 96], Plaintiff's disagreement with Judge Wu's judicial decisions does not demonstrate Judge Wu's bias or lack of impartiality. Nor do Judge Wu's decisions reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible. *2 Plaintiff separately attests that he never received a ruling on his fourth motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Kato, which was filed on July 13, 2020 [Doc. # 144] and which Judge Wu denied on July 22, 2020 [Doc. # 146]. [Doc. # 180 at 3, 11.] Accordingly, the Court will direct the Court Clerk to re-serve a copy of Judge Wu's July 22, 2020 Order [Doc. # 146] on Plaintiff. III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that Judge Wu's impartiality might reasonably be questioned or that he has displayed such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's third motion to disqualify Judge Wu is DENIED.