ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO REPLACE MAGISTRATE (AND CLERK)

(ECF No. 106)

JANIS L. SAMMARTINO, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Mychal Andra Reed's Request to Replace Magistrate (and Clerk) ("Mot.," ECF No. 106). Plaintiff declines to "divulge his specific reasoning for said request," although offers to "do so at this Court[`]s behest." Id. at 1. He adds that his "only endeavor is to receive justice against defendants . . . and to be dealt with by an `impartial' jurist who will . . . treat[ him] `fairly] in the process, minus bias/prejudice." Id. at 2.

Although Plaintiff does not specify whether he brings his Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), his Motion fails under either standard because he fails to present any "facts" from which a "reasonable person" could "conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," see Yagman v. Republic Ins. ("Yagman II"), 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added) (quoting In re Yagman ("Yagman I"), 796 F.2d 1165, 1179 (9th Cir.), amended, 803 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1986), mandamus granted by Brown v. Baden, 815 F.2d 575 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, Real v. Yagman, 484 U.S. 963 (1987)) (citing United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1012 (1980)) and recusal is not warranted under either statute based on speculation. See, e.g., Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Yagman II, 987 F.2d at 626). The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff MAY RENEW his Motion only if he can identify specific facts that would cause a reasonable person to question Magistrate Judge Lopez's impartiality.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.