Davis v. Kelso et al

Filing 17

ORDER Denying Motion For Recusal With Prejudice (Doc. 16 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 5/2/2011. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

CHARLES T. DAVIS,

10
11

CASE NO: 1:10-cv-01184-LJO-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL
WITH PREJUDICE

v.
(Doc. 16)

12

CLARK J. KELSO, et al.,

13
Defendants.
14

/

15
Charles Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
16
in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 1,
17
2010. (Doc. 1). On April 22, 2011, the Court issued an “order to show cause” as to why Plaintiff’s
18
IFP status should not be revoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 15). In response, on April
19
29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking recusal of the undersigned. (Doc. 16).
20
Disqualification is required if a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or if the
21
judge has a personal bias or prejudice for or against a party. Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d
22
1034, 1045 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), 455(b)(1)), aff’d, 496 U.S. 543 (1990). “The
23
bias must stem from an extrajudicial source and not be based solely on information gained in the
24
course of the proceedings.” Id. (citing In re Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir.
25
1984)). Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s judicial rulings in this case does not constitute a
26
valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 2004)
27
(citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, the
28
1

1

Court’s order to show cause is not proof of judicial bias. See In re Complaint of Judicial

2

Misconduct, 599 F.3d 1087, 1088 (9th Cir. 2010); In re Complaint of Judicial Misconduct, 583 F.3d

3

598, 598 (9th Cir.2009) (unsubstantiated assertion that a judge harbored racial bias insufficient and

4

“adverse rulings alone do not constitute proof of bias”).

5

Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing, and his motion for recusal of the undersigned

6

is denied. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion, filed April 29, 2011, is HEREBY

7

DENIED, with prejudice.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:
0jh02o

May 2, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2