Ford v. California Health Care Facility et al.

Filing 84

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/7/2018 DENYING plaintiff's 83 motion to disqualify the undersigned magistrate judge. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARREN VINCENT FORD,

12
13
14

No. 2:15-cv-2588 GEB DB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JAHANGIRI,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action, has moved to

18

disqualify the undersigned magistrate judge. The court construes plaintiff’s request as a motion

19

to recuse the undersigned under 28 U.S.C. § 144. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s

20

motion is denied.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LEGAL STANDARDS
Federal law provides that a party may seek recusal of a judge based on bias or prejudice.
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.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that
bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days
before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be
heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such
1

1

time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall
be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it
is made in good faith.

2
3

28 U.S.C. § 144.
The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 is “‘whether a reasonable person with

4
5

knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be

6

questioned.’” Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 607, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v.

7

Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983)). To provide adequate grounds for recusal, the

8

prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source since a judge’s previous adverse ruling alone is

9

not sufficient for recusal. See id.
Section 144 expressly conditions relief upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient

10
11

affidavit. A judge who finds the affidavit legally sufficient must proceed no further under § 144

12

and must assign a different judge to hear the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 144; United States v. Sibla,

13

624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). Nevertheless, where the affidavit is not legally sufficient, the

14

judge at whom the motion is directed can determine the matter. See United States v. Scholl, 166

15

F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th

16

Cir. 1988) (holding that only after determining the legal sufficiency of a § 144 affidavit is a judge

17

obligated to reassign decision on merits to another judge)). If the affidavit is legally insufficient,

18

then recusal can be denied. See United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566

19

(9th Cir. 1995).

20

ANALYSIS

21

Plaintiff’s motion for recusal in this case is substantively insufficient under § 144 because

22

it fails to allege facts that would support the contention that the undersigned has exhibited bias or

23

prejudice directed towards plaintiff from an extrajudicial source. See Sibla 624 F.2d at 868 (“An

24

affidavit filed pursuant to [§ 144] is not legally sufficient unless it specifically alleges facts that

25

fairly support the contention that the judge exhibits bias or prejudice directed toward a party that

26

stems from an extrajudicial source.”). Plaintiff’s motion for recusal alleges bias and prejudice

27

arising solely out of judicial actions taken by the undersigned. Plaintiff complains that the

28

////
2

1

undersigned is biased against him based on the January 12, 2018 findings and recommendations

2

in this case. (See Plt.’s Mtn. (ECF No. 83).)

3

The issues raised by plaintiff in his motion for recusal are not proper grounds to disqualify

4

a judge for bias and prejudice. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, “judicial rulings

5

alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United

6

States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Instead, the judicial rulings are a basis for appeal, not recusal.

7

See id. (“In and of themselves . . . [judicial rulings] cannot possibly show reliance upon an

8

extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or

9

antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved. Almost invariably, they are

10

proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”); Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir.

11

1999) (“Leslie’s allegations stem entirely from the district judge’s adverse rulings. That is not an

12

adequate basis for recusal.”) (citations omitted).

13

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to disqualify the

14

undersigned magistrate judge (ECF No. 83) is denied.

15

Dated: February 7, 2018

16
17
18
19
20

DLB:9
DB/orders/prisoner-civil rights/ford2588.recuse

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3