Anderson v. American Airlines, Inc.

Filing 158

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL. Denying plaintiff's renewed motion for recusal 148 . Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 4/13/2011. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

EDWARD E. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. C-08-4195 MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECUSAL

v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

15

/

16
17

Before the Court is plaintiff Edward Anderson’s (“plaintiff”) Motion to Vacate

18

Judgment and memorandum in support thereof, filed April 6, 2011 before the Honorable

19

William Alsup and construed thereby as a motion for recusal. (See Order, filed April 12,

20

2011, referring “Motion for Recusal.”)1 Defendant American Airlines, Inc. has filed

21

opposition. Having read and considered the parties’ respective submissions, the Court

22

rules as follows.

23

By the instant motion, plaintiff seeks to “renew[]” a motion for recusal previously filed

24

by plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 (see Pl. Mem. at 26) and denied December 15,

25

2009 (see Order Denying Disqualification (Breyer, J.)). Plaintiff cites no statutory or case

26

authority, however, to support renewal or reconsideration of his earlier motion for recusal,

27
1

28

Also before the Court are two documents correcting errors in the above-described
notice and memorandum, as well as plaintiff’s letter of April 1, 2011 incorporated by
reference in said memorandum.

1

and to the extent the instant motion is construed as a new motion based on newly-

2

discovered facts, such motion is procedurally defective in that it is not supported by an

3

affidavit “stat[ing] the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists,”

4

see 28 U.S.C. § 144. Further, any procedural defect aside, the Court, having reviewed the

5

record on which plaintiff relies, finds no basis for the relief requested. See 28 U.S.C. § 455

6

(setting forth circumstances under which judge shall disqualify himself); Liteky v. United

7

States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (noting, under both § 144 and § 455, “judicial rulings

8

alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”).

9
10
11

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 13, 2011
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

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