Smith v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 51

ORDER, signed by District Judge Susan R. Bolton on 7/18/2012. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's July 16, 2012 "Motion and Request to Recuse Susan R. Bolton" (Doc. 50 ) is denied. (Fahrney, E)

1

KM

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Michael Lenoir Smith,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

Arnold Schwarzeneggar, et al.,

13

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 1-07-1547-SRB
ORDER

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s July 16, 2012 “Motion and Request to Recuse

16

Susan R. Bolton” (Doc. 50). Plaintiff seeks recusal of the undersigned judge and contends

17

that recusal is appropriate because previous rulings unfavorable to Plaintiff demonstrate bias

18

and prejudice against Plaintiff’s case.

19

A motion to recuse a judge, whether it is based on 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), 28 U.S.C. §

20

455(b)(1) or 28 U.S.C. §144, must demonstrate that any alleged bias or impartiality stems

21

from extrajudicial conduct, i.e., a litigant may not seek recusal based on a prior adverse

22

ruling in the case. See Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 830 F.2d 1513 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing In

23

re Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1984)) (28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and

24

(b)(1)); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986) (same); United States

25

v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966) (28 U.S.C. § 144).

26

demonstrated or even suggested any extrajudicial bias. Accordingly, the Motion and Request

27

to Recuse will be denied.

28

Plaintiff has not

1
2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s July 16, 2012 “Motion and Request to Recuse
Susan R. Bolton” (Doc. 50) is denied.

3
4

DATED this 18th day of July, 2012.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-