Curtis Clifford Ingram v. Unknown Deputy No 1 et al

Filing 78

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: denying 76 Motion for Recusal. (twdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON

O

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 11-9428 DOC(OPx)

Date: August 26, 2013

Title: CURTIS CLIFFORD INGRAM V. UNKNOWN DEPUTY NO. 1 ET. AL.
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Julie Barrera
Courtroom Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
NONE PRESENT

NONE PRESENT

PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff Ingram’s Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge Parada (“Motion”)
(Dkt. 76). The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. After
considering the moving papers, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
I.

Background

Plaintiff Curtis Ingram has two matters before Judge Parada: the instant civil rights action, Case
No. 11-9428, and Ingram’s § 2254 habeas proceeding, Case No. 12-7881. Both matters were initially
assigned to then-Magistrate Judge Fernando Olguin. The Chief Magistrate Judge transferred the two
cases to Judge Parada upon Judge Olguin’s appointment to the district court. See Order of the Chief
Magistrate Judge (Case No. 11-9482 Dkt. 62); Order of the Chief Magistrate Judge (Case No. 12-7881
Dkt. 20). Plaintiff now moves to recuse Judge Parada from this case.
II.

Legal Standard

Plaintiff moves for Judge Parada’s disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Under 28 U.S.C. §
455(a), “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); see also
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 916 (2004). This includes when a
judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed
MINUTES FORM 11 DOC
CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb
Page 1 of 3

evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1), or when a judge has a conflict of
interest, see 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(2)-(5).
III.

Analysis

Plaintiff claims that Judge Parada should be disqualified from Plaintiff’s case for several
reasons, each of which the Court now takes in turn.
First, Plaintiff argues that Judge Parada has “exceeded [his] jurisdiction by and through
conducting habeas proceedings in Habeas case CV-12-7881, when [he] was not assigned to this case.”
Motion at 2. The Court understands Plaintiff to be arguing that because the instant case and Plaintiff’s
§ 2254 habeas proceeding, SA CV 12-7881 DOC (OPx), were originally assigned to then-Magistrate
Judge Fernando Olguin, Judge Parada cannot hear them.
Plaintiff points to no facts that might cause a reasonable person to question Judge Parada’s
impartiality. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s cases were expressly reassigned to Judge Parada on January 2,
2013, per the order of the Chief Magistrate Judge, when Judge Olguin took the bench as a district
judge. See Order of the Chief Magistrate Judge (Case No. 11-9482 Dkt. 62); Order of the Chief
Magistrate Judge (Case No. 12-7881 Dkt. 20). The district court has the power to oversee its business
pursuant to its own rules and orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 137. General Order 05-07 for this district
provides that pro se civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are assigned to magistrate judges. G.O.
05-07. Judge Parada is a magistrate judge within this district, and is thus properly hearing the instant
case.
Second, Plaintiff argues that Judge Parada made a “ruling more favorable toward respondent,”
Motion at 2, in Plaintiff’s habeas case when Judge Parada construed arguments briefed in the state
courts but not raised in Plaintiff’s § 2254 Petition to not be part of the habeas action, see Minute Order
on Supplemental Briefing, Case No. 12-7881 (Dkt. 35). Plaintiff further argues that Judge Parada erred
in allowing the State to later respond to an argument that was listed as “pending” in his federal petition,
as Plaintiff claims the argument was initially uncontroverted and so should be deemed admitted.
This appears to be a claim that Judge Parada’s disagreeing with Plaintiff’s legal arguments
shows his bias against Plaintiff. But “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a
bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Such rulings “cannot
possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence
the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved.” Id.
Plaintiff claims no extrajudicial source of bias or impartiality. He points to no comments or remarks
that “reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.” Id.
The Court thus finds no basis for disqualification on this theory.
Finally, Plaintiff lists Judge Parada’s “failure to adjudicate civil case CV-11-9428DOC(OP),
where it is reasonably believed that [he possesses] constructive knowledge of case CV-12MINUTES FORM 11 DOC
CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb
Page 2 of 3

7881DOC(FMO), that could pose a question of impartiality and/or actual and/or apparent bias” as a
final basis for disqualification. Motion at 2. Although Plaintiff’s precise claim is not entirely clear, the
Court reads the motion to argue that Judge Parada’s exposure to Plaintiff’s habeas case is creating an
impermissible bias in this case. Plaintiff points to no actual facts suggesting any such bias, particularly
any facts suggesting that Judge Parada has ever displayed “such a high degree of favoritism or
antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.” See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff similarly
offers no evidence that any actions by Judge Parada are improper regarding his management of
Plaintiff’s case.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Judge Parada is DENIED.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.

MINUTES FORM 11 DOC
CIVIL - GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb
Page 3 of 3