Kristin Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 284

Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT) I have before me defendants-intervenors-appellants’ motion to disqualify myself from this appeal. I have not hesitated to recuse from cases in the past when doing so was warranted by the circumstances. See Khatib v. County of Orange, 622 F.3d 1074, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010); Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 586 F.3d 1108, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009); Buono v. Kempthorne, 527 F.3d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 2008); Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 913, 914 (9th Cir. 2003); Valeria v. Davis, 320 F.3d 1014, 1015 n.** (9th Cir. 2003); Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 284 F.3d 1039, 1039 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002); Coalition for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 711 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, for reasons that I shall provide in a memorandum to be filed in due course, I am certain that “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would [not] conclude that [my] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Sao Paulo State of the Federated Republic of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 233 (2002) (per curiam). I will be able to rule impartially on this appeal, and I will do so. The motion is therefore DENIED. (Phoned Counsel 9:30 am) [7564262]--[Edited 12/02/2010 by BY] (BY)

Download PDF
K r i s t i n Perry, et al v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al D o c . 284 F IL E D UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 02 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U . S . C O U R T OF APPE A L S K R IS T IN M. PERRY; et al., Plaintiffs - Appellees, C IT Y AND COUNTY OF SAN F R A N C IS C O , Plaintiff - IntervenorA p p e lle e , v. A R N O L D SCHWARZENEGGER, in his o f f ic ia l capacity as Governor of California; et al., Defendants, and D E N N IS HOLLINGSWORTH; et al., Defendants -IntervenorsA p p e lla n ts . N o . 10-16696 D .C . No. 3:09-cv-02292-VRW N o rth ern District of California, San Francisco ORDER B e fo r e : REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: I have before me defendants-intervenors-appellants' motion to disqualify m y se lf from this appeal. I have not hesitated to recuse from cases in the past when d o in g so was warranted by the circumstances. See Khatib v. County of Orange, Dockets.Justia.com 6 2 2 F.3d 1074, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010); Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 586 F .3 d 1108, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009); Buono v. Kempthorne, 527 F.3d 758, 760 (9th C ir. 2008); Sw. Voter Registration Educ. Project v. Shelley, 344 F.3d 913, 914 (9th C ir. 2003); Valeria v. Davis, 320 F.3d 1014, 1015 n.** (9th Cir. 2003); A lv a r ez -M a c h a in v. United States, 284 F.3d 1039, 1039 n.1 (9th Cir. 2002); C o a litio n for Econ. Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692, 711 (9th Cir. 1997). H ere, for reasons that I shall provide in a memorandum to be filed in due co u rse, I am certain that "a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts w o u ld [not] conclude that [my] impartiality might reasonably be questioned." United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Sao Paulo S ta te of the Federated Republic of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 535 U.S. 229, 233 (2 0 0 2 ) (per curiam). I will be able to rule impartially on this appeal, and I will do so . The motion is therefore DENIED. 2