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)

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