Caputo v. Kern County Sheriff's Office

Filing 87

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 86 Motion for Recusal of Chief Judge O'Neill, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/5/18. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN CAPUTO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. Case No. 1:15-cv-01008-LJO-EPG (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF CHIEF JUDGE O’NEILL (ECF NO. 86) 14 GONZALES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Brian Caputo (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 20 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion 21 asking to be assigned a different district judge due to legal prejudice (ECF No. 86), which the 22 undersigned construes as a motion for recusal of the undersigned. Plaintiff asserts that the 23 undersigned unfairly denied Plaintiff’s motion to suppress in Plaintiff’s criminal case. Plaintiff 24 asks that a different district judge be assigned. 25 A judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be 26 questioned. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A judge shall also disqualify himself if he has “personal 27 knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). The 28 decision regarding disqualification is made by the judge whose impartiality is at issue. Bernard v. 1 1 Coyne, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994). The Supreme Court has recognized that: 2 [J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. In and of themselves (i.e., apart from surrounding comments or accompanying opinion), they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required… when no extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal. 3 4 5 6 7 Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (citation omitted). “The test is ‘whether 8 a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality 9 might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 2000) 10 (quoting United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997)). “Frivolous and 11 improperly based suggestions that a judge recuse should be firmly declined.” Maier v. Orr, 758 12 F.2d 1578, 1583 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). 13 Here, Plaintiff is asking that the undersigned recuse himself because Plaintiff did not like 14 the undersigned’s ruling in Plaintiff’s criminal case, and believes that the ruling shows that the 15 undersigned is biased. As described above, this is almost never grounds for recusal, and the 16 undersigned sees no reason to deviate from the general rule here. The undersigned has reviewed 17 the record, and there is no evidence of any impropriety. 18 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for recusal is denied. 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ April 5, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?