USA v. Stefanski

Filing 8

Order on Motion to Disqualify Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case Nos. 3:10-po-044-JDR
3:10-po-047-JDR

Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN STEFANSKI,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
JUDGE/MAGISTRATE
Docket 5

The Defendant, John Stefanski, filed a Motion to Disqualify
Judge/Magistrate at Docket 5. Mr. Stefanski is proceeding pro se in his cases
before this court. Mr. Stefanski states that in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 144, the
magistrate judge should be disqualified from hearing his case. Construing the pro
se defendant’s arguments liberally and in the light most favorable to the defendant,
the court determines that his motion alleges the magistrate judge does not have
jurisdiction to hear his cases.
Mr. Stefanski received two violation notices in July of 2010. One for
leaving property unattended for longer than four months in accordance with 36

C.F.R. 13.45(b)(1)1 and the second violation notice for improper fuel storage in
accordance with 36 C.F.R. 13.45(b)(4) and (b)(5).2 Both offenses are punishable by
a fine or by imprisonment not exceeding six months pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 1.3(a).
The penalties qualify the offenses as Class B misdemeanors, which are considered
petty offenses.3
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the magistrate judge has jurisdiction to
hear this matter. Section 636(a)(4) states that the magistrate judge may enter a
sentence for a petty offense.

Local Magistrate Rules 2 and 3(a)(6) give the

magistrate judge authority to hear Class B misdemeanors.

This court has

jurisdiction over Mr. Stefanski’s cases.
The Defendant cites 28 U.S.C. § 144 as a basis for his claim that
Magistrate Judge Roberts should be disqualified. Section 144 states:
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court
makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the
judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal
bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any
adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further therein,
but another judge shall be assigned to hear such
proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the
belief that bias or prejudice exists . . . or good cause shall
1

See 3:10-po-00044-JDR.

2

See 3:10-po-00047-JDR.

3

See 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(a)(2), 58(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 19;
United States v. Arraiza Navas, 206 F. Supp.2d 274 (D. P.R. 2002).
10-po-044 & 047-JDR STEFANSKI Order @ 5 Denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Judge_mtd.wpd

2

be shown for failure to file it within such time . . . . It shall
be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record
stating that it is made in good faith.
In his brief motion, the Defendant argues that he believes “that bias and prejudice
exists.” Mr. Stefanski also states that he believes that the magistrate judge has
violated his rights and the magistrate judge’s oath of office.4 No affidavit is included
with his motion.
While Mr. Stefanski may disagree with the magistrate judge’s rulings at
the December 7, 2010 hearing, this is not enough to disqualify him. Disqualification
must stem from an extrajudicial source, something other than a judge’s rulings.5 The
Defendant has presented no evidence of bias. His motion is without merit.
//
//

4

See Docket 5 (“[B]elief that bias and prejudice exists[.] U.S. Magistrate
Judge[,] John D Roberts did on 12-7-10 fail to acknowledge that I was standing in
God’s Kingdom; And that I was A Sovereign Citizen of the United States And that
my rights Are reserved And Protected in Accordance with the Constitution for the
United States of America, Bill of Rights And Virginia Declaration of
Independence. He has breached his oath of office And Admitted to Treason (No
Record of his oath of office exist in the republic of Alaska) my Common Law
rights gurentee [sic] In suits where the value exceeds twenty dollars the Right of
trial by Jury shall be preserved.”).
5

See Liteky .v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994); United States v.
Studley, 783 F.2d 934 (9th Cir. 1986); Pesnell v. Arsenault, 490 F.3d 1158 (9th
Cir. 2007).
10-po-044 & 047-JDR STEFANSKI Order @ 5 Denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Judge_mtd.wpd

3

This case is properly before the magistrate judge. The Defendant has
made no showing of bias. Defendant’s motion is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO

ORDERED.

DATED this 8th

day of March, 2011, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ John D. Roberts
JOHN D. ROBERTS
United States Magistrate Judge

10-po-044 & 047-JDR STEFANSKI Order @ 5 Denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Judge_mtd.wpd

4