Clinton v. California Department of Corrections et al
Filing
521
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 08/31/2012 ORDERING Motions construed as Motions for Reconsideration 386 406 410 416 are DENIED; the magistrate judge's 1/15/2010 order is AFFIRMED; No further motions for reconsideration of this order, or additional requests for dismissal sanctions on these facts, will be considered; and plaintiff's request for the recusal of Magistrate Judge Kellison is DENIED. (Waggoner, D)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
THOMAS CLINTON,
9
10
11
No. CIV S-05-1600-LKK-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
/
14
Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action
15
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are several of Plaintiff’s filings, which
16
all appear to be requests for the court to reconsider the Magistrate Judge’s ruling denying
17
dismissal sanctions (Docs. 387, 406, 410, 416). Within those documents Plaintiff is also
18
requesting the recusal of Magistrate Judge Kellison.
19
Plaintiff continues to argue in his recent filings that the court should enter
20
judgment in his favor as a sanction for Defendants’ bad faith and destruction of documents.
21
These issues were raised in Plaintiff’s prior motions and addressed in the Magistrate Judge’s
22
order. Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s order
23
shall be upheld unless “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the
24
court finds that it does not appear that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was clearly erroneous or
25
contrary to law. The January 15, 2010 order (Doc. 384) is, therefore, affirmed.
26
In addition, Plaintiff’s request for the recusal of Judge Kellison is governed by 28
1
1
U.S.C. § 144, which provides as follows:
2
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a
timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is
pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of
any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another
judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
3
4
5
Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1922), is the seminal case interpreting § 144. See U.S. v.
6
Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738 (1976). To be sufficient, a motion to recuse must state facts which,
7
if true, fairly support the allegation of bias or prejudice which stems from an extrajudicial source
8
and which may prevent a fair decision. See Azhocar, 581 F.2d at 740-41. Thus, the Supreme
9
Court in Berger also held that adverse rulings alone cannot constitute the necessary showing of
10
bias or prejudice. See Berger, 255 U.S. at 34. Here, other than setting forth his disagreement
11
with Judge Kellison’s rulings, Plaintiff make no showing of bias or prejudice.1 His request for
12
recusal is therefore denied.
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
14
1.
15
The motions construed as motions for reconsideration (Docs. 387, 406,
410, 416) are denied;
16
2.
The Magistrate Judge’s January 15, 2010, order is affirmed;
17
3.
No further motions for reconsideration of this order, or additional requests
18
for dismissal sanctions on these facts, will be considered; and
4.
19
20
Plaintiff’s request for the recusal of Magistrate Judge Kellison is denied.
DATED: August 31, 2012.
21
22
23
24
25
1
26
Plaintiff also attempts to show prejudice or bias by including inaccurate facts
about Judge Kellison. Such allegations are also insufficient to warrant recusal.
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?