Johnson v. Chevron Corporation et al

Filing 428

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND REASSIGNMENT (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2010)

Johnson v. Chevron Corporation et al

Doc. 428

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This rule is subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, such as a request to correct or clarify a prior order entered by the district court. Id.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL BERNARD JOHNSON III, Plaintiff, v. CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. /

No. C 07-05756 SI ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND REASSIGNMENT

Plaintiff has filed a motion for recusal of the undersigned judge and reassignment of this action to another judge in this district. The motion is DENIED because the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it. Plaintiff brings this motion while his action is pending on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. "As a general rule, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Stein v. Wood, 127 F.3d 1187, 1189 (9th Cir. 1997).1 Moreover, both of the statutes under which plaintiff seeks recusal require that there be a "proceeding" pending before the judge sought to be recused. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455(a). As plaintiff's case is currently on appeal, there is no "proceeding" pending before this Court, and the Court thus lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion. The motion for recusal and reassignment is therefore DENIED without prejudice to renewal after plaintiff's appeal is decided, in the event any portion of the case is remanded to this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 4, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

Dockets.Justia.com