Robinson v. Adams, et al.

Filing 161

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 150 MOTION for Recusal of the District Court Judge, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/30/12. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-1380-AWI-BAM PC

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECUSAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

v.
D. ADAMS, et al.,

(ECF No. 150)
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

16

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for

17

recusal of the Magistrate Judge and District Court Judge. (ECF No. 150.) Plaintiff brings this

18

motion on the grounds that the Court refuses to make Defendants follow case law, court rules, and

19

orders. (Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal 1, ECF No. 150.)

20

A judge is required to recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might

21

reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if “he has a personal bias or prejudice against a

22

party,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). In considering recusal under section 455(a), the question is

23

“[w]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s

24

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th

25

Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997)).

26

“Parties cannot attack a judge’s impartiality on the basis of information and beliefs acquired

27

while acting in his or her judicial capacity.” McTiernan, 695 F.3d at 892 (quoting United States v.

28

Rrias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 853 n.6 (9th Cir. 1982)). In this action, Plaintiff is alleging the source
1

1

of the judicial bias or prejudice are the orders issued in response to his motions filed in this action,

2

however, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”

3

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). “Opinions formed by the judge on the basis of

4

facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, do not constitute a basis

5

for a bias or partiality motion unless they “display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would

6

make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1044

7

(9th Cir. 2008).

8

The actions taken by the undersigned in this action have been an appropriate response to the

9

filings and do not reflect a deep-seated antagonism toward Plaintiff or favoritism toward Defendants.

10

The rulings do not reflect animosity, partiality, or an inability to render a fair judgment in the instant

11

action. The undersigned does not have any bias or prejudice, personal or otherwise, toward the

12

parties, and can be truly impartial in deciding this action. Plaintiff’s motion for recusal shall be

13

denied.

14

In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an order transferring this action to Magistrate Judge Oberto

15

as a compromise. Plaintiff sets forth no legal support for his motion to transfer this action and the

16

request is denied.

17
18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the undersigned to
recuse himself from this action, filed September 10, 2012, (Doc. No. 150) is DENIED.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated:
0m8i78

November 30, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2