Ronnie O Brown v. Rod Hoops et al

Filing 189

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Plaintiff's Motion to District Presiding Judge to Review Allegation of Prejudice by Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow for Disqualification for Cause 150 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Court to Rule Upon Plaintiff Motion of Recusal of Magistrate Judge; Request to Refer Recusal to the District Court Chief Magistrate Judge for Ruling on Recusal of Magistrate Judge 187 . Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify is hereby DENIED. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-5415-CAS (DTB)

Title

RONNIE O. BROWN V. ROD HOOPS, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 7, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers:) MOTION TO DISTRICT PRESIDING JUDGE TO
REVIEW ALLEGATION OF PREJUDICE BY MAGISTRATE
JUDGE DAVID T. BRISTOW FOR DISQUALIFICATION FOR
CAUSE (filed March 7, 2013) [Dkt. No. 150]
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT TO RULE UPON
PLAINTIFF MOTION OF RECUSAL OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE: REQUEST TO REFER RECUSAL TO THE DISTRICT
COURT CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR RULING ON
RECUSAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE (filed May 6, 2013) [Dkt.
No. 187]

I.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2013, pro se plaintiff Ronnie O. Brown filed the instant “Motion to
District Presiding Judge to Review Allegation of Prejudice by Magistrate Judge David T.
Bristow for Disqualification for Cause.” Dkt. No. 150. The motion was referred to this
Court for ruling pursuant to General Order 08-05 and Local Rule 72-5. The Court
construes the motion as a motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Bristow.
Plaintiff alleges the grounds for his motions are as follows. First, Judge Bristow
has denied plaintiff’s numerous motions seeking to have the Court provide him with
copies of the Local Rules, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence,
annotated sections of the U.S. Code, Supreme Court Reports, among other legal
materials. He also seeks materials for preparing his court filings. Second, he contends
that Judge Bristow waived compliance with Local Rule 37 in a case management
scheduling order, but that Judge Bristow later ordered plaintiff to comply with this rule.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-5415-CAS (DTB)

Date

Title

May 7, 2013

RONNIE O. BROWN V. ROD HOOPS, ET AL.

Third, plaintiff contends that Judge Bristow denied his motion seeking to have the court
direct the Los Angeles County Sheriff with access to the law library. Fourth, plaintiff
contends that he was impermissibly denied his request to be appointed counsel. Fifth,
plaintiff contends that he has been prejudiced by various other rulings of Judge Bristow,
including the denial of plaintiff’s requests for the appointment of an investigator and
medical expert to assist him and for reasonable accommodations for plaintiff’s poor
eyesight under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dkt. No. 150.
On May 6, 2013, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Court to Rule upon Plaintiff Motion
of Recusal of Magistrate Judge; Request to Refer Recusal to the District Court Chief
Magistrate Judge for Ruling on Recusal of Magistrate Judge.” Dkt. No. 187. This
motion was also referred to the undersigned for ruling. After considering plaintiff’s
arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II.

DISCUSSION

The Court construes plaintiff’s motion for disqualification as being brought under
both 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section 144 provides for disqualification 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 affidavit must set forth “the facts and
the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists.” Id. And under § 455, judges must
disqualify themselves “in any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.” Id. § 455(a).
The substantive standard for disqualification is the same under both sections:
“whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the
judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Hernandez, 109
F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted). Moreover, the alleged bias cannot
result from mere disagreement, however vehement, with a judge’s rulings; instead, “the
alleged bias must stem from an ‘extrajudicial source.’” Id. (quoting Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994)). “[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts
introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior
proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a
deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.”
Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-5415-CAS (DTB)

Date

Title

May 7, 2013

RONNIE O. BROWN V. ROD HOOPS, ET AL.

Plaintiff offers no facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Judge
Bristow’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Plaintiff’s contentions center
around various rulings that occurred in the course of litigating his case with which
plaintiff disagrees. Disagreement with these rulings, of course, does not identify an
“extrajudicial source” of bias, but is precisely the type of objection that does not support
a motion to disqualify a magistrate judge. Plaintiff identifies no facts that establish that
Magistrate Judge Bristow has “deep-seated antagonism” towards plaintiff or favoritism
towards defendants, and none is apparent to the Court. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.1 Because
plaintiff’s disagreement cannot form the basis for a motion to disqualify, and there
appears to be no extrajudicial source of bias, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge
Bristow should not be disqualified.
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to disqualify is hereby
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

:

00

CMJ

1

In fact, Judge Bristow has set a further status conference to address plaintiff’s
contentions that he be provided with accommodations under the ADA.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3