Farley v. Virga et al
Filing
75
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/15/14 ORDERING that plaintiffs motion to have this action assigned to a trial judge 73 construed as a motion for recusal, is denied.(Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIAM D. FARLEY,
12
No. 2: 13-cv-1751 WBS KJN P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
T. VIRGA, et al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant
18
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 3, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that this action be
19
assigned to a trial judge. (ECF No. 73.) The undersigned construes this motion as a request for
20
recusal. For the reasons stated herein, this motion is denied.
Plaintiff requests that this action be assigned to a “trial or circuit judge” because he
21
22
believes that the undersigned is working against plaintiff “in any way possible.”1 (Id. at 3.)
23
Plaintiff alleges that the undersigned is working with or for the defendants because they are
24
correctional officers. (Id.)
A judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be
25
26
questioned, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if he has a personal bias or prejudice against a party, 28 U.S.C.
27
28
1
A district judge, the Honorable William B. Shubb, has been assigned to this action.
1
1
§ 455(b)(1). Remarks made during the course of a judicial proceeding that are critical or hostile
2
to a party or his case ordinarily will not support a bias or partiality claim unless they reveal an
3
extrajudicial source for the opinion, or "such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to
4
make fair judgment impossible." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994.) The
5
decision regarding disqualification is made by the judge whose impartiality is at issue. Bernard v.
6
Coyne, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994).
7
Where the source of alleged bias or prejudice is a judicial proceeding, plaintiff must show
8
a disposition on the part of the judge that "is so extreme as to display clear inability to render fair
9
judgment." Liteky, 510 U.S. at 541. "Opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts
10
introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings,
11
do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated
12
favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Id. at 555. Bias is not
13
found where the judge has expressed anger or dissatisfaction or annoyance that is within the
14
bounds of reasonable behavior. Id.
15
This undersigned’s actions in this case do not support disqualification. The actions taken
16
were an appropriate response to filings. The undersigned’s rulings do not reflect an extreme
17
disposition or deep-seated antagonism. They do not reflect animosity, partiality, or inability to
18
render a fair judgment in the instant action. They do not indicate bias, personal or otherwise, or
19
prejudice, personal or otherwise.
20
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to have this action
21
assigned to a trial judge (ECF No. 73), construed as a motion for recusal, is denied.
22
Dated: September 15, 2014
23
24
Far1751.rec
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?