State Bar of California v. Everett

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL 14 3 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/2/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/2/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff,

8

10

DANIEL EVERETT,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECUSAL

v.

9

Case No. 17-cv-03595-SI
Case No. 17-cv-01716-SI

12

Defendant Daniel Everett attempts for the second time to remove his California State Bar

13

disciplinary proceedings to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).1 2 Defendant has also

14

filed multiple motions for recusal of the Undersigned in both the active case, No. 17-cv-03595-SI,

15

and the closed case, which the Court remanded in May, 2017. See Case No. 17-cv-03595-SI, Dkt.

16

Nos. 3, 14; Case No. 17-cv-01716-SI, Dkt. Nos. 36, 38. In his motions, defendant argues that the

17

Undersigned has a bias against him and in favor of the State Bar such that she cannot act

18

impartially in these proceedings.

19

overarching interest in resolving defendant’s State Bar disciplinary proceedings without further

20

delay. See Dkt. No. 13. The Court will forego a detailed recitation of the facts as the parties are

21

well aware of the background of this case. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES

22
23
24
25

The State Bar opposes defendant’s efforts in light of an

defendant’s motions for recusal.
Two statutes govern a judge’s recusal in federal court, 28 U.S.C §§ 144 & 455. The
standard under either statute is the same: “[W]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all of
the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United

26
1

27
2

28

Unless otherwise noted, citations to the docket are in Case No. 3:17-cv-03595-SI.

At this time, the Court reserves ruling on plaintiff’s motion to remand, Dkt. No. 12, and
defendant’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. Nos. 7, 8.

1

States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Studley, 783

2

F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986)). “Ordinarily, the alleged bias must stem from an ‘extrajudicial

3

source[,]’” and “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality

4

motion.” Id. at 1454 (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-56 (1994)). “[O]pinions

5

formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the

6

current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality

7

motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment

8

impossible.” Id. (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 554-56).
Defendant fails to state facts that might reasonably call into question the Undersigned’s

10

impartiality. First, most of defendant’s bases for his recusal motions are not “extrajudicial,” but

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

rather have to do with this Court’s decision to remand defendant’s previously removed action,

12

Case No. 17-cv-01716-SI. Minor mistakes aside, the Court carefully considered all of defendant’s

13

filings in that case, and held that defendant’s removal was improper. See Case No. 17-cv-01716-

14

SI, Dkt. Nos. 18, 21. Further the Court clarified its original remand order, and reaffirmed its view

15

that defendant’s State Bar proceedings do not give rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction. See

16

id., Dkt. No. 29. Second, the one “extrajudicial” source defendant identifies as calling into

17

question the Undersigned’s impartiality, is the Undersigned’s participation in a State Bar event,

18

“Celebrating Women in Competition Law in California,” on June, 2017. The Undersigned acted

19

as moderator at the event. Defendant states, without any factual basis, that he is “informed that

20

[the Undersigned] was compensated for her participation, by at least having her expenses paid

21

for.” Further Mot. for Recusal, Case No. 17-cv-1716, Dkt. No. 38 ¶ 4. He also paints the

22

California State Bar as a private organization. Defendant is wrong on all accounts. Not only did

23

the Undersigned receive no compensation for participating in the event, but the California State

24

Bar is a governmental entity established by the California constitution. See Dkt. No. 13 at 1; Cal.

25

Const., Art. VI § 9. In any event, were the Undersigned to have received any compensation in

26

connection with the event, and were the State Bar a private organization as he contends, the level

27

of compensation would not be sufficient to call into question the Undersigned’s ability to remain

28

impartial.

Defendant has not demonstrated that the Undersigned displays a “deep-seated
2

1

favoritism or antagonism that would make a fair judgment impossible.” Hernandez, 109 F.3d at

2

1454 (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 554-56).

3

The Court finds that defendant’s verified statements are legally insufficient to warrant

4

recusal and that his motions are interposed for delay. Local Rule 3-14. Defendant’s motions for

5

recusal, both in Case No. 17-cv-01716-SI, Dkt. Nos. 36, 38, and in Case No. 17-cv-03595-SI, Dkt.

6

Nos. 3, 14, are hereby DENIED.

7
CONCLUSION

8
9
10

Defendant’s motions for recusal in Case No. 17-cv-01716-SI and 17-cv-03595-SI are
hereby DENIED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

This order resolves Dkt. Nos. 3, 14 in 3:17-cv-03595-SI.

12

This order resolves Dkt. Nos. 36, 38 in 3:17-cv-01716-SI.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: August 2, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3