Jackson v. State of California

Filing 15

ORDER Denying 14 Motion to Disqualify District Judge for Bias and Prejudice signed by District Judge Neil V. Wake on 04/20/2009. (Flores, E)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify District Judge for Bias and Prejudice. (Doc. # 14.) The Motion is based on Plaintiff's dissatisfaction with prior rulings of the Court. That is no basis whatever for disqualification of a judge. A motion for recusal ordinarily may not be based on "prior rulings in the proceeding, or any proceeding, solely because they were adverse." " Clemens v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, 428 F.3d 1175, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2005). When no extrajudicial source is involved, judicial rulings may serve as the basis for disqualification only "in the rarest of circumstances" where they "evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism" which would "make fair judgment impossible." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). While the Court in Liteky did not discuss what showing a party would have to make in order to meet this burden, it is clear that he must show something more than a vs. State of California, et al., Defendants. Julius Lee Jackson, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 1-08-1406-NVW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

disproportionate number of decisions in the opponent's favor. Litigation is not egalitarian to the extent that courts must allocate rulings equally in favor of each side, regardless of the merits. "A trial judge must be free to make rulings on the merits without the apprehension that if he makes a disproportionate number in favor of one litigant, he may have created the impression of bias. Judicial independence cannot be subservient to a statistical study of the calls he has made during the contest." In re International Business Machines Corp., 618 F.2d 923, 929 (2d Cir. 1980). Therefore, the Court's prior rulings do not give rise to any cause for recusal. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify District Judge for Bias and Prejudice (doc. # 14) is denied. DATED this 20th day of April, 2009.

-2-