Williams v. United States Department of Labor

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PLAINTIFFS 7 MOTION FOR RECUSAL. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ANTHONY L. WILLIAMS,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8

ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECUSAL
(Docket No. 7)

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR,
Defendant.

9
10

No. C 11-6653 CW

________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Pro se Plaintiff Anthony L. Williams has filed a motion
11
seeking the recusal of the undersigned in the instant case.
12
Plaintiff seeks recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and
13
455(b)(1).

Section 455(b)(1) requires a judge to recuse “[w]here

14
he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or
15
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
16
proceeding.”

“The test for personal bias or prejudice in section

17
144 is identical to that in section 455(b)(1).”

United States v.

18
Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980).
19
Recusable bias must be both personal and extra-judicial.
20
United States v. Carignan, 600 F.2d 762, 763-64 (9th Cir. 1979).
21
This means that the bias must be “directed against the party” and
22
cannot arise out of judicial acts.

Id.

The Supreme Court has

23
held, “The alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying must
24
stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the
25
merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his
26
participation in the case.”

United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384

27
U.S. 563, 583 (1966).
28

The source of bias must be extra-judicial

1

because the recusal statutes were “never intended to enable a

2

discontented litigant to oust a judge because of adverse rulings

3

made, for such rulings are reviewable otherwise.”

4

American Steel Barrel Co., 230 U.S. 35, 44 (1913).

Ex parte

5

Plaintiff seeks recusal of the undersigned on the basis of

6

her judicial acts, namely her prior rulings against him and her

7

alleged actions in controlling her courtroom and taking notes

8

during a hearing.

9

finding of recusable bias.

These are legally insufficient to support a
Accordingly, there is no need to refer

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

this recusal request to another judge for decision, and

11

Plaintiff’s motion for recusal is DENIED (Docket No. 7).

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated:

4/13/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2