Young v. Paramo
Filing
17
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 17, 2016. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JERRY WAYNE YOUNG,
Case No. 16-cv-01220-JST (PR)
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING
MOTION FOR RECUSAL
v.
9
10
DANIEL PARAMO,
Re: Dkt. No. 7
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Plaintiff, Jerry Wayne Young, is incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison following a
13
14
conviction in the San Diego County Superior Court. Young commenced this action, while housed
15
at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, by filing a “writ of injunction” seeking to prevent his
16
transfer to a different institution. He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis by
17
separate order. His complaint is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
DISCUSSION
18
19
20
I.
Standard of Review
A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner
21
seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28
22
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any
23
claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
24
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
25
(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d
26
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).
27
28
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not necessary; the
1
statement need only ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds upon
2
which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). Although in
3
order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s
4
obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and
5
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. . . .
6
Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell
7
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must
8
proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a
9
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.
12
42, 48 (1988).
13
II.
Analysis
14
It is well-settled that prisoners have no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular
15
institution. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-48 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S.
16
215, 224 (1976). A prisoner’s liberty interests are sufficiently extinguished by his conviction that
17
the state may generally confine or transfer him to any of its institutions, to prisons in another state,
18
or to federal prisons, without offending the Constitution. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 530
19
(9th Cir. 1985) (citing Meachum, 427 U.S. at 225) (intrastate prison transfer does not implicate
20
Due Process Clause), and Olim, 461 U.S. at 244-48 (interstate prison transfer does not implicate
21
Due Process Clause)). Accordingly, the instant action will be dismissed for failure to state a
22
claim. Dismissal is without leave to amend as it appears amendment would be futile.
23
III.
24
Motion for Recusal
Plaintiff has also filed a motion to recuse the undersigned judge on the grounds of judicial
25
bias. He argues that bias is evident from the rulings made against him in Young v. Knipp, C 14-
26
2092 JST (PR) (N.D. Cal.). In that action, plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking
27
an order compelling the state to provide him with a free transcript of his state criminal
28
proceedings. The Court dismissed the action with prejudice on the ground that federal courts are
2
1
without power to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state judicial officers, or other state
2
officials in the performance of their duties. See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160,
3
1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991); In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731-32 (7th Cir. 2001).
Motions to disqualify, or recuse, a judge fall under two statutory provisions, 28 U.S.C.
4
5
§ 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Section 144 provides for recusal where a party files a timely and
6
sufficient affidavit averring that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias
7
or prejudice either against the party or in favor of an adverse party, and setting forth the facts and
8
reasons for such belief. See 28 U.S.C. § 144. Similarly, § 455 requires a judge to disqualify
9
himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C.
§ 455(a), including where the judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,” id. §455
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
(b)(1).
12
A judge finding a § 144 motion timely and the affidavits legally sufficient must proceed no
13
further and another judge must be assigned to hear the matter. See id.; United States v. Sibla, 624
14
F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). Where the affidavit is not legally sufficient, however, the judge at
15
whom the motion is directed may determine the matter. See id. at 868 (holding judge challenged
16
under § 144 properly heard and denied motion where affidavit not legally sufficient).
17
The substantive test for personal bias or prejudice is identical under §§ 144 and 455. See
18
Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867. Specifically, under both statutes recusal is appropriate where “a reasonable
19
person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might
20
reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation
21
omitted). Consequently, an affidavit filed under § 144 will raise a question concerning recusal
22
under §§ 455(a) and (b)(1) as well. Sibla, 642 F.2d at 867.
23
Here, plaintiff’s allegations categorically fail to establish any basis, under either § 144 or
24
§ 455, for a determination that the Court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned herein, and
25
consequently are insufficient as a matter of law. Motions for recusal are “limited by the
26
‘extrajudicial source’ factor which generally requires as the basis for recusal something other than
27
rulings, opinions formed or statements made by the judge during the course of trial.” United
28
States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868 (holding
3
1
affidavit not legally sufficient unless it alleges facts demonstrating bias or prejudice that “stems
2
from an extrajudicial source”). Judicial rulings may constitute grounds for appeal, but are not a
3
valid basis for a motion for recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994).
Plaintiff’s motion is legally insufficient to require recusal and will therefore be DENIED.
4
5
6
IV.
Other Requests
Plaintiff also appears to seek an injunction that would order his unconditional release and
7
would void certain judgments against him in his San Diego County Superior Court case. These
8
requests have already been addressed in a previous action, Young v. Knipp, 15-0493 SI (PR)
9
(N.D. Cal.), and are dismissed here on the same basis as in the previous action, i.e., as filed in the
10
wrong venue.
CONCLUSION
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state claim under the
authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and as filed in the wrong venue.
The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all pending
motions as moot, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 17, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?