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-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?