Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
28
ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 27 Motion to Disqualify Judge (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2013) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/5/2013: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sisS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
United States District Court
3
Northern District of California
4
5
6
GARY L. LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
7
8
9
10
Case No.: C 4:12-4258 KAW
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND
MOTION FOR RECUSAL
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff is pro se and proceeds in forma pauperis in this case. The parties have consented
to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On January 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document titled "Plaintiff's affidavit demanding for
15
the disqualification of assigned judge." Dkt # 27. Plaintiff previously filed a similar motion,
16
which the Court denied. See Dkt # 14, 15.
17
Plaintiff's motion cites Civil Local Rule 3-15, Disqualification of Assigned Judge, which
18
states, "Whenever an affidavit of bias or prejudice directed at a Judge of this Court is filed
19
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144, and the Judge has determined not to recuse him or herself and found
20
that the affidavit is neither legally insufficient nor interposed for delay, the Judge shall refer the
21
request for disqualification to the Clerk for random assignment to another Judge."
22
28 U.S.C. § 144 states:
23
Whenever a party . . . makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the
judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice against
him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein,
but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.
24
25
26
27
28
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or
prejudice exists . . .
The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is “whether a reasonable person
1
2
with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might
3
reasonably be questioned.” See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir.
4
1986).
5
To be legally sufficient, an affidavit must state facts which, taken as true, fairly
6
support the moving party's allegation that bias or prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial
7
source may prevent a fair decision on the merits. See United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d
8
735, 739 (9th Cir. 1978).
not an affidavit. See 66 Black's Law Dictionary (9th Ed. 2009) (affidavit defined as "A
11
Northern District of California
Plaintiff's motion is legally insufficient. First, the document Plaintiff has filed is
10
United States District Court
9
voluntary declaration of facts written down and sworn to by the declarant before an officer
12
authorized to administer oaths"); see also 28 U.S.C. §1746 (allowing a declaration to be
13
used in the place of an affidavit by using the following language: “I declare . . . under
14
penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).
15
(Signature)”.). Plaintiff has signed the document he filed, but has not declared under
16
penalty of perjury that the statements in the document are true and correct. For this reason
17
alone, Plaintiff's filing does not meet the requirements of Section 144.
18
Second, the filing does not state facts and reasons to support Plaintiff's allegation
19
that the Court is biased or prejudiced. Plaintiff writes that the Court knowingly and
20
willfully violated his equal protection rights. The Court cannot understand the rest of
21
Plaintiff's brief, which refers briefly to husband and wife testimony, motions to compel
22
and discovery sanctions, disbarment, "Sharon Ann Kidd," and the obstruction of justice
23
based on discrimination. None of these references provide any facts or reasons for Judge
24
Westmore to recuse herself.
25
Plaintiff writes that "now the court (KAW) is officially a defendant in this matter."
26
But Judge Westmore is not a defendant in this case. Plaintiff filed this case as a social
27
security case against the Commissioner of Social Security.
28
2
1
Because Plaintiff's motion is legally insufficient and there is no basis for recusal,
2
the Court will not refer the request for disqualification to the Clerk for random assignment
3
to another Judge. Plaintiff's motion for recusal is denied.
4
It is so ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: February 5, 2013
7
___________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
8
9
10
Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?