David Louis Whitehead v. Sony Inc et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE WILSON 12 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc). Modified on 12/14/2012 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID LOUIS WHITEHEAD,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
SONY INC., COLUMBIA
PICTURES, INC.; AEG LIVE AND
ANSHUTZ COMPANY; JOHN
BLANCA; JOHN McCLAIN; et al.

16
17
18

Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 12-08970 SVW (PLAx)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE WILSON
[Dkt. No. 12]

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff David Louis

19

Whitehead’s Motion for Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455.

20

reviewed Plaintiff’s submission, the court DENIES the motion and

21

adopts the following order.

22

Having

A judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which

23

his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and in proceedings

24

in which “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,

25

or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the

26

proceeding.”

27

articulated the standard for disqualification under § 455 as

28

follows:

28 U.S.C. § 455(a) & (b)(1).

The Ninth Circuit has

1
2
3
4
5
6

The test under § 455(a) is whether a reasonable person with
knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Typically, a
judge’s partiality must be shown to be based on information
from extrajudicial sources, although sometimes, albeit
rarely, predispositions developed during the course of a
trial will suffice. In the instance where the partiality
develops during the course of the proceedings, it can be the
basis of recusal only when the judge displays a deep-seated
and unequivocal antagonism that would render fair judgment
impossible.

7

F.J. Hanshaw Enters., Inc. v. Emerald River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d

8

1128, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citations

9

omitted).

10

Plaintiff asserts that Judge Steven V. Wilson is biased

11

against him based on the fact that Judge Wilson rejected

12

Plaintiff’s pleadings instead of allowing them to be filed, despite

13

the fact that he is a pro se litigant.1

14

conclude from these assertions that Judge Wilson bears a “deep-

15

seated and unequivocal antagonism” toward Plaintiff “that would

16

render fair judgment impossible.”

17

at 1144-45.

No reasonable person could

F.J. Hanshaw Enters., 244 F.3d

Accordingly, the Motion for Recusal is DENIED.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: December 14, 2012
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The docket indicates that Plaintiff’s filing was rejected
based on its lack of name, address, phone, facsimile number, and
email address; the failure to provide a copy for the judge; and the
failure of the proof of service to list the parties to which
service was made. (Dkt. No. 11.)
2