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)

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