Houston v. Baker

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/16/2019 DENYING 25 Plaintiff's 4/5/2019 request, construed as a Motion for Recusal. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM HOUSTON,

12

No. 2:18-cv-1271-KJM-EFB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

BAKER,

15

ORDER

Defendant.

16
17
18

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

19

U.S.C. § 1983. He has filed a request for “another magistrate judge to process [his] case,” and

20

asserts that the undersigned’s rulings in this action demonstrate bias. ECF No. 25. The court

21

construes the request as a motion for recusal.

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 his 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 April 5, 2019 request (ECF No.

8

25), construed as a motion for recusal, is denied.

9

Dated: May 16, 2019.

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