ORDER ON MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 125, 127, 133, 138, 141, 149

JAMES DONATO, District Judge.

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a state prisoner. The Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss as a sanction for plaintiff's failure to submit to a deposition. The Court noted that while plaintiff's conduct was not acceptable, dismissing the case was a drastic sanction that was not warranted at the time. Although defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment, they reported that plaintiff sat for the deposition but refused to answer many questions. This order addresses several motions filed by plaintiff, and a motion for an extension filed by defendants.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 on the grounds that the Court has made adverse rulings against him and ordered him to sit for a deposition. Section 455 may support recusal when the judge: (a) has a personal bias or prejudice against a party; (b) has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts; (c) either before or after becoming a judge was related to or connected with the case, the parties or their attorneys; or (d) the judge or a relative has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or a party to the proceeding or any interest that would be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings. § 455(b)(1)-(4).

None of these conditions exists here, and mere dissatisfaction with the Court's rulings is no basis for recusal. See Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999). And as the record shows, the Court has issued orders "adverse" to both sides' requests at various times in the case. Recusal is denied.

Plaintiff will be given an extension to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff should use this time to prepare his opposition.

The Court has serious concerns about the number of frivolous motions and other papers plaintiff is filing in this case. If this unacceptable conduct continues, the Court will summarily strike plaintiff's filings, and will consider entering a pre-filing screening requirement.

In addition to that admonition, the Court orders:

1. Plaintiff's motion for judgment (Docket No. 125) is DENIED for the same reasons as set forth in several prior orders.

2. Plaintiff's motion for recusal (Docket No. 127) is DENIED.

3. Defendants' request for an extension of time (Docket No. 133) is GRANTED and the motion for summary judgment is deemed timely filed.

4. Plaintiff's motion to compel (Docket No. 138) is DENIED because plaintiff has failed to describe his discovery requests and defendants have provided discovery responses.

5. Plaintiff's motion to supplement (Docket No. 141) is DENIED. Plaintiff may include these exhibits and arguments in his opposition to the summary judgment motion.

6. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time (Docket No. 149) is GRANTED and the opposition to the motion for summary judgment will be filed by September 10, 2018.

Each party is advised that a failure to adhere to these orders will result in sanctions, including dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.