Bravo v. Cates

Filing 67

ORDER (1) Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse; (2) Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot; and (3) Dismissing the Case. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/9/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 VICTOR J. BRAVO, 9 Plaintiff, v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-12-6459 EMC CDCR DIRECTOR, et al., 12 ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECUSE; (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT; AND (3) DISMISSING THE CASE Defendants. ___________________________________/ 13 14 15 On December 2, 2013, this Court issued an order granting Plaintiff an extension of time to 16 respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss further ordering Plaintiff to show cause why his case 17 should not be dismissed, with prejudice, on the merits. On December 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed his 18 response. In this response, Plaintiff argues that the undersigned is “abusing color of law to obstruct 19 justice and violate my civil rights by (knowingly and intentionally . . . ) violating . . . and/or . . . 20 suppressing State of California laws.” Dkt. No. 64, at 1. Accordingly, Plaintiff has expressly 21 requested that the undersigned recuse himself. Id. at 14. 22 Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) provides that a judge shall “disqualify himself in any proceeding 23 in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” In effect, Plaintiff is arguing that the 24 order to show cause – in which the undersigned raised several specific concerns regarding Plaintiff’s 25 ability to state a claim – constitutes a violation of his civil rights. However, prior rulings rarely, if 26 ever, give rise to disqualification or recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) 27 (noting that “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality 28 motion”); Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999) (affirming district court’s 1 denial of motion to recuse where only evidence of bias were judge’s rulings on prior motions and a 2 general allegation of discrimination). This Court’s prior order contains no indication of bias or 3 partiality but rather examines applicable precedent and invites Plaintiff to respond to it. Plaintiff 4 may disagree with the Court’s analysis, but this is not a basis for recusal. Accordingly, Plaintiff has 5 failed to identity a factual basis for recusal that would lead a reasonable person to question the 6 undersigned’s impartiality and, as a result, his request for recusal of the undersigned is DENIED. 7 Further, having reviewed the substance of Plaintiff’s response to this Court’s order to show articulated in the Court’s December 2, 2013 order to show cause, the Court sua sponte DISMISSES 10 this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is 11 For the Northern District of California cause, this Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is warranted. Accordingly, for the reasons 9 United States District Court 8 DENIED as moot. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: January 9, 2014 16 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?