Kinney v. State Bar of California

Filing 16

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OR RECUSE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 1, 2016. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2016)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHARLES KINNEY,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-02277-MMC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY OR RECUSE

v.
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,

Re: Dkt. No. 15

Defendant.

12
13
14
15

Before the Court is plaintiff's "Motion to Disqualify or Recuse," filed May 20, 2016.
Having read and considered the motion, the Court rules as follows.
“Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely

16

and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal

17

bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall

18

proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.”

19

28 U.S.C. § 144. “If the judge to whom a timely motion is directed determines that the

20

accompanying affidavit specifically alleges facts stating grounds for recusal under section

21

144, the legal sufficiency of the affidavit has been established, and the motion must be

22

referred to another judge for a determination of its merits.” United States v. Sibla, 624 F.

23

2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). “An affidavit filed pursuant to [§ 144] is not legally sufficient,”

24

however, unless it “specifically alleges facts that fairly support the contention that the

25

judge exhibits bias or prejudice directed toward a party stemming from an extrajudicial

26

source.” Id. at 868.

27

Here, the declaration submitted by plaintiff in support of the instant motion is

28

conclusory in nature. To the extent any facts are set forth in the motion or the supporting

1

declaration, such facts pertain only to plaintiff's disagreement with the Court’s rulings in

2

two prior cases, which disagreement is not a legally cognizable ground for recusal. See

3

United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding “a judge’s prior

4

adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal”; explaining "judge's performance while

5

presiding over [movant's] case" is not "extrajudicial"). Consequently, plaintiff having

6

failed to allege any facts stating a possible cognizable ground for recusal under § 144 or

7

otherwise, the Court finds the affidavit is not legally sufficient. See id. Further, no basis

8

exists for the Court to disqualify itself pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455.

9
10

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: June 1, 2016
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

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

1

Upon filing, the instant action was randomly assigned to a magistrate judge.
Plaintiff thereafter declined to consent to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge,
and, pursuant to the district's Assignment Plan, see General Order No. 44, the instant
action was randomly reassigned to the undersigned. Once the defendant has been
served, plaintiff may wish to explore the possibility of a stipulation to proceed before a
specified magistrate judge.
2