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).

Download PDF
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

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?