Williams v. Malfi

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING 41 MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 13, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) ANTHONY J. MALFI, Warden, ) ) Respondent. ______________________________ ) CHARLES LEE WILLIAMS, No. C 06-5825 MMC (PR) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13

(Docket No. 41)

On September 22, 2006, petitioner Charles Lee Williams, a California state prisoner

14 proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 15 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 25, 2009, the Court denied the petition on the merits. 16 Petitioner now moves to alter or amend the judgment on grounds that the judge before

17 whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice against Petitioner. (See Docket 18 No. 41.) Petitioner contends that the court's order denying his petition "massively conflicts 19 with existing law." "Such arbitrary discretion," Petitioner asserts, "lacks fair and impartial 20 consideration." The Court construes Petitioner's filing as a motion for recusal. 21 A party may move to disqualify, or recuse, a judge from presiding in a given case. 22 Motions to disqualify fall under two statutory provisions, 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. 23 § 455. Section 144 provides for recusal where a party files a timely and sufficient affidavit 24 averring that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice 25 either against the party or in favor of an adverse party, and setting forth the facts and 26 reasons for such belief. See 28 U.S.C. § 144. Similarly, § 455 requires a judge to disqualify 27 himself "in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned," 28 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), including where the judge "has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a

1 party," id. § 455(b)(1). 2 A judge finding a § 144 motion timely and the affidavits legally sufficient must 3 proceed no further and another judge must be assigned to hear the matter. See id.; United 4 States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). Where the affidavit is not legally 5 sufficient, however, the judge at whom the motion is directed may determine the matter. See 6 id. at 868 (holding judge challenged under § 144 properly heard and denied motion 7 where affidavit not legally sufficient). 8 The substantive test for personal bias or prejudice is identical under §§ 144 and 455. 9 See Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868. Specifically, under both statutes recusal is appropriate where "a 10 reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's 11 impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622,
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

12 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Consequently, an affidavit filed under § 144 will raise 13 a question concerning recusal under §§ 455(a) and (b)(1) as well. Sibla, 642 F.2d at 867. 14 Here, as noted, plaintiff moves to disqualify the undersigned on the ground of bias and 15 prejudice based on the Court's alleged use of "arbitrary discretion" in denying a petition on 16 grounds that "massively" conflict with existing law. Plaintiff's allegations categorically fail 17 to establish any basis, under either § 144 or § 455, for a determination that the Court's 18 impartiality might reasonably be questioned herein, and, consequently, are insufficient as a 19 matter of law. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (holding judicial 20 rulings on basis of facts introduced or events occurring in course of judicial proceedings 21 "almost never" provide grounds for recusal); Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868 (holding affidavit not 22 legally sufficient unless it alleges facts demonstrating bias or prejudice that "stems from an 23 extrajudicial source"). 24 25 Accordingly, petitioner's motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge
2

26 DATED: January 13, 2010 27 28