Khor Chin Lim v. Rong Sheng Inc et al

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: denying 7 plaintiffs Request for Recusal R. Gary Klausner. (lc) Modified on 3/15/2012 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

KHOR CHIN LIM,
v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. CV 12-01482-RGK (Ex)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECUSAL [7]

RONG SHENG, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff Khor Chin Lim (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to

18

Recuse United States District Judge R. Gary Klausner from the above-titled matter.

19

(Dkt. No. 7.) Having considered the arguments in support thereof, the Court deems

20

the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.

21

For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

22

The standard for disqualification of a judge is established by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144

23

and 455. Section 144 permits a party seeking disqualification to file a “timely and

24

sufficient affidavit” setting forth “the facts and reasons” for the party’s belief that “the

25

judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either

26

against him or in favor of any adverse party.” 28 U.S.C. § 144. The affidavit must

27

“state facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists.” Id. When

28

determining the legal sufficiency of the affidavit, “the factual allegations in the

1

affidavit must be accepted as true,” although “general or conclusory allegations will

2

not support disqualification.” United States v. Zagari, 419 F. Supp. 494, 500–01

3

(N.D. Cal. 1976).

4

The applicable provision of § 455 provides: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate

5

judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his

6

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). “The substantive

7

standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455 is the same:

8

‘[W]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that

9

the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’ “[J]udicial rulings alone

10

almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United

11

States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). This is so because specific allegations of bias or

12

prejudice involving judicial acts which the district judge either performed or failed to

13

perform while presiding over the case do not provide a basis for recusal. See Studley,

14

783 F.2d at 939.

15

‘extrajudicial source.’” United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453–54 (9th Cir.

16

1997) (quoting United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986) and Liteky

17

v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554–56 (1994)).

Therefore, the alleged bias ordinarily must stem from an

18

In support of his Motion, Plaintiff contends that Judge Klausner’s February 22,

19

2012 denial of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order

20

“display[ed] a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment

21

impossible” because Judge Klausner “simply denied [the TRO] without any

22

explanation of the grounds. (Lim Decl., ECF No. 9, at 2.) According to Plaintiff,

23

“Such failure or reticence not only retards the growth of case law, it also deprives the

24

litigant the opportunity to fathom the depth of Your Honor’s wisdom, knowledge and

25

decision.” (Id.)

26

Plaintiff’s complaints evidence a grave misunderstanding of the applicable

27

standard for recusal. If Plaintiff disagrees with the denial of his request for a TRO, his

28

remedy would be to appeal that ruling, not to seek the disqualification of the judge.

2

1

See Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A judge’s previous

2

adverse ruling alone is not sufficient bias.”).

3

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion fails to set forth sufficient factual

4

allegations to require disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 or any

5

evidence tending to show personal bias stemming from an extrajudicial source. Nor

6

is there any basis to believe that any other ground for disqualification exists. Rather,

7

it appears that Plaintiff simply disagrees with Judge Klausner’s ruling. This is not

8

enough to require disqualification. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

March 14, 2012

12
13
14

____________________________________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3