Belyew v. Britt

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 7/26/17 ordering that plaintiffs July 5, 2017 letter to the Clerk 7 , construed as a motion for recusal, is denied. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LISA BELYEW,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-1199-JAM-EFB P
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

RONALD W. BRITT,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a county inmate proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. She has filed a letter addressed to the Clerk of the Court, asking that all cases

19

assigned to the undersigned be reassigned to another judge “due to a conflict of interest from

20

lawsuits in the past . . . .” ECF No. 7. The court construes the letter as a motion for recusal. So

21

construed, the motion is denied.

22

Motions for recusal fall under two statutory provisions, 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C.

23

§ 455. A judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be

24

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

25

U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Additionally, recusal is required under § 144 when a party “makes and files a

26

timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal

27

bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party . . . .” Here, plaintiff does not

28

identify any specific or legitimate grounds for recusal, and her motion must be denied. See Liteky
1

1

v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid

2

basis for a recusal motion based on bias or impartiality); United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138,

3

1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (same); see also United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980)

4

(affidavit filed pursuant to § 144 is not legally sufficient where it contains only conclusions and is

5

devoid of specific fact allegations tending to show personal bias stemming from an extrajudicial

6

source).

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s July 5, 2017 letter to the Clerk

8

(ECF No. 7), construed as a motion for recusal, is denied.

9

Dated: July 26, 2017.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2