Jones v. Mohave, County of et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 45 Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Judgment; denying 46 Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions; denying 47 Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Judge. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 11/2/12.(TLJ)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Mohave County; Carol Meier, Mohave) ) County Recorder, ) ) Defendants. ) ) James Luther Jones Junior, No. CV 11-8093-PCT-JAT ORDER 16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment (Doc. 45), 18 Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 46), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Judge (Doc. 19 47). The Court now rules on the Motions. 20 On January 11, 2012, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 21 Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Specifically, the 22 Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to meet the standards set forth in Federal Rules 23 of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). The Court was unable to ascertain either Plaintiff’s legal 24 theories for his claims or the factual basis upon which Plaintiff was basing any claims against 25 Defendants. Nonetheless, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint. 26 Accordingly, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 31, 2012. Defendants moved 27 to dismiss the Amended Complaint and the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss because 28 Plaintiff had failed to cure any of the deficiencies that the Court had identified in its Order 1 granting Plaintiff leave to amend. The Court then dismissed the case without prejudice. The 2 Clerk of the Court entered judgment accordingly. 3 Plaintiff now seeks disqualification of the undersigned based on the Order dismissing 4 the case. Plaintiff claims that, by granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the undersigned 5 “has demonstrated clear and blatant bias in favor of Libelees.” (Doc. 47 at 3). The Court 6 finds that recusal is not necessary in this case because “a judge’s prior adverse ruling is not 7 sufficient cause for recusal.” U.S. v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir.1986); see, e.g., 8 Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of California, 993 F.2d 710, 712–13 (9th Cir.1993) (holding that 9 adverse rulings alone are insufficient to demonstrate bias and to compel recusal); Mayes v. 10 Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (same). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to 11 Disqualify is denied. 12 Plaintiff also moves to set aside the judgment dismissing this case without prejudice 13 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. In his Motion for Rule 60 Relief, Plaintiff 14 fails to identify any factual or legal basis for the Court to set aside the judgment. 15 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 60 Relief from Judgment is denied. 16 Plaintiff next moves for sanctions against defense counsel. Essentially, Plaintiff’s 17 Motion for Sanctions is a complaint that defense counsel represented his client in filing 18 Motions to Dismiss. This is not sanctionable conduct. Further, it appears that Plaintiff’s 19 motion for sanctions is not made in good faith and is, in fact, made for the sole intention of 20 harassing Defendants and needlessly increasing the cost of litigation. The Court will not 21 indulge such harassment and, if Plaintiff files similarly non-meritorious motions in the future, 22 such motions will be denied without further explanation from the Court. Accordingly, 23 Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is denied. 24 Based on the foregoing, 25 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment (Doc. 45) is denied. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 46) is 27 28 denied. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Judge (Doc. 47) -2- 1 2 is denied. DATED this 2nd day of November, 2012. 3 4 5 6 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?