Sherrod v. Ryan et al

Filing 71

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED construing Plaintiff's "Notice of Conflict" (Doc. 69 ) as a request for the disqualification of the undersigned Magistrate Judge. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff's request for disqualification of the undersigned Magistrate Judge (Doc. 69 ). (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Eileen S Willett on 1/13/17. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Roosevelt Marquize Sherrod,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-00296-PHX-DJH (ESW)

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16

On September 20, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s “Request for Rule 35

17

Physical and Mental Examination” (Doc. 65) and Plaintiff’s request for court-appointed

18

counsel (Doc. 64). (Doc. 66). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Notice of Conflict”

19

24

(Doc. 69) filed on December 29, 2016. In the Notice, Plaintiff states:
The District Court Judge Eileen S. Willett have biasedly
manifested a shorage [sic] of the immoralization [sic] of
virture [sic] currenting [sic] from the Constitution of the
United State of America in this matter of a violation of
[Plaintiff’s] 8th Amendment; District Court Judge Eileen S.
Willett denys [sic] to Appoint me counsel and Rule 35
physical and mental examination because the District Court
Judge don’t consider me worthy nor the matter.

25

(Id. at 2). The Court construes Plaintiff’s Notice as a motion seeking the disqualification

26

of the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. Under 28 U.S.C. §

27

455, any federal justice, judge, or magistrate judge must disqualify himself or herself in

20
21
22
23

28

1

any proceeding in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 1 The

2

Ninth Circuit has “held repeatedly that the challenged judge himself should rule on the

3

legal sufficiency of a recusal motion in the first instance.” United States v. Studley, 783

4

F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Clay v. Brown, Hopkins & Stambaugh, 892

5

F.Supp. 11, 13 (D.D.C. 1995) (holding that a party who sought to vacate reference of a

6

civil matter to a magistrate judge based on alleged bias should have presented to the

7

magistrate judge a motion for recusal). In determining whether a judge’s disqualification

8

is required under 28 U.S.C. § 455, the Ninth Circuit has adopted the following objective

9

test: “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that

10

the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Nelson, 718

11

F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983). Moreover, “[t]he alleged prejudice must result from an

12

extrajudicial source; a judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.”

13

Studley, 783 F.2d at 939.

14

Here, Plaintiff only refers to the undersigned’s denial of Plaintiff’s motions for a Rule

15

35 examination and court-appointed counsel to support his claim of judicial bias.

16

reiterate, the Ninth Circuit has held that adverse rulings do not establish the requisite bias

17

necessitating a judge’s recusal, even in cases where the rulings were erroneous. United

18

States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that a judge’s “acceptance of an

19

invalid guilty verdict in the first trial did not necessitate recusal”); Hagans v. Andrus, 651

20

F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1981) (“It is not a ground for disqualification that the judge has ruled

21

against the moving party or that he may have committed an error of law.”). Plaintiff has

22

presented no evidence of judicial bias. The Court does not find that a reasonable person with

23

knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the undersigned Magistrate Judge’s

24

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

To

25
1

26
27
28

A federal judge’s recusal is also required for personal bias or prejudice under 28
U.S.C. § 144. “This section, however, requires the timely filing of an affidavit alleging
such bias.” Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d 1034, 1045 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987). Because
Plaintiff did not file an affidavit with his Notice of Conflict, 28 U.S.C. § 144 is not
applicable. See id. (“Because no affidavit was filed by Texaco, section 144 is not
applicable.”); United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980) (“Section 144
expressly conditions relief upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient affidavit.”).
-2-

1

Based on the foregoing,

2

IT IS ORDERED construing Plaintiff’s “Notice of Conflict” (Doc. 69) as a request

3
4
5
6

for the disqualification of the undersigned Magistrate Judge.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s request for disqualification of the
undersigned Magistrate Judge (Doc. 69).

Dated this 13th day of January, 2017.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-