United States v. Laughlin et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/31/2013 ORDERING that Defendants' 37 Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:12-cv-1990 MCE GGH PS

v.

ORDER

ROBERT S. LAUGHLIN et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
Defendants are proceeding in this action pro se. This proceeding was referred to this court

16
17

by Local Rule 302(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Defendants have filed a motion to

18

recuse the undersigned from this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455.
Although a judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be

19
20

questioned, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if he has a personal bias or prejudice against a party, 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 455(b)(1), the undersigned finds no reason to recuse himself here. Remarks made during the

22

course of a judicial proceeding that are critical or hostile to a party or his case ordinarily will not

23

support a bias or partiality claim unless they reveal an extrajudicial source for the opinion, or

24

“such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v.

25

United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157, 127 L.Ed.2d 474, 484 (1994.) The

26

decision regarding disqualification is made by the judge whose impartiality is at issue. Bernard v.

27

Coyne, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994).

28

/////
1

1

Where the source of alleged bias or prejudice is a judicial proceeding, the party moving

2

for disqualification must show a disposition on the part of the judge that “is so extreme as to

3

display clear inability to render fair judgment.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 541, 114 S. Ct. at 1155.

4

“Opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course

5

of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality

6

motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment

7

impossible.” Id. at 555, 114 S. Ct. at 1157. Bias is not found where the judge has expressed

8

anger or dissatisfaction or annoyance that are within the bounds of reasonable behavior. Id.

9

Defendants contend that the undersigned is biased against him based on the order and

10

findings and recommendations issued by the undersigned on October 4, 2013, adverse to

11

defendants, which defendants claim reflect his impartiality and conflict of interest. They also

12

claim that this opinion reflects that the undersigned is offering legal advice to counter-defendants.

13

This undersigned’s actions in this case do not support disqualification. The actions taken

14

were an appropriate response to filings. The court’s rulings do not reflect an extreme disposition

15

or deep-seated antagonism. They do not reflect animosity, partiality, or inability to render a fair

16

judgment in the instant action. They do not indicate bias, personal or otherwise, or prejudice,

17

personal or otherwise. Defendants’ request that the undersigned recuse himself is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: Defendants’ motion to recuse the undersigned, filed

18
19

October 22, 2013, is denied.

20

Dated: October 31, 2013

21

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

22

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23

GGH:076

24
25
26
27
28
2