Bonilla v. Ayers

Filing 297

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING PETITIONER'S 29 MOTION FOR RECUSAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEVEN W. BONILLA,

Case No. 08-cv-00471-YGR (HSG)

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S
MOTION FOR RECUSAL

v.
9
10

ROBERT AYERS, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 291

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-14, Petitioner Steven W. Bonilla’s pro se “Challenge for

13

Cause - Incompetency” has been referred to this Court. Dkt. Nos. 291-93. The Court construes

14

Petitioner’s “Challenge for Cause” as a motion for recusal and finds it suitable for determination

15

without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the

16

motion.

17
18

I.

BACKGROUND
On May 12, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant motion, asserting that Judge Gonzalez

19

Rogers—to whom the underlying case is assigned—did not properly apply certain provisions of

20

the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Petitioner’s grievance arises from a March 26,

21

2015 court order in which Judge Gonzalez Rogers “ruled that the motions filed by the Petitioner

22

[under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act] must be filed by his counsel.” Dkt. No. 291 at 3.

23

Specifically, Petitioner contends that Judge Gonzalez Rogers “does not have the authority to

24

rewrite the statute to include the additional requirement that a crime victim must be represented by

25

counsel when the statute clearly and unambiguously states that the Petitioner/crime victim has the

26

right to file the motion.” Id.

27
28

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-14, the Clerk assigned the motion to the undersigned for
adjudication.

1

II.

DISCUSSION

2

A.

3

28 U.S.C. § 455(a), states that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United

Legal Standard

4

States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

5

questioned.” In analyzing a § 455(a) disqualification motion, the test is an objective one:

6

“whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s

7

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal.,

8

428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).

9

Disqualification is also authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 144, which provides that if “the judge before
whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further . . . .” Under both statutes, the salient question

12

is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s

13

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.

14

2008).

15

Furthermore, motions for recusal are “limited by the ‘extrajudicial source’ factor which

16

generally requires as the basis for recusal something other than rulings, opinions formed or

17

statements made by the judge during the course of trial.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909,

18

913-14 (9th Cir. 2008). As a result, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis

19

for a bias or partiality motion . . . unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that

20

would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).

21

Disqualification on the basis of an allegedly erroneous judicial ruling should not be ordered except

22

in the “rarest of circumstances.” Holland, 519 F.3d at 914.

23
24

The decision on a motion to disqualify a judge is a matter of the district court’s discretion.
Pesnell, 543 F.3d at 1043.

25

B.

26

Petitioner contends only that Judge Gonzalez Rogers is “incompetent to follow the law,”

Petitioner Has Not Identified Any Evidence That Supports Disqualification

27

not that she has any personal bias or prejudice against him. And his only evidence of Judge

28

Gonzalez Rogers’s alleged incompetency is the denial of Petitioner’s pro se motion pursuant to
2

1

the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Such evidence is clearly insufficient to warrant recusal, as it is

2

based on “judicial rulings alone.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate

3

any “deep seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. The

4

Court therefore finds that Petitioner’s “Challenge for Cause” is frivolous and must be denied.

5

III.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s “Challenge for Cause - Incompetency,” construed

as a motion for recusal, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 6/2/2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3