Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Vann

Filing 32

ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenDENYING 26 MOTION TO RECUSE. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

5
6

No. C 13-1148 YGR

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO RECUSE
(Docket No. 26)

v.

7

KEITH AARON VANN,

8

Defendant.
________________________________/

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

This matter is currently pending before District Judge Yvonne

11

Gonzalez Rogers.

12

moved to recuse Judge Gonzalez Rogers from this case.

13

after Judge Gonzalez Rogers requested that Defendant’s motion be

14

randomly reassigned, the motion was referred to the undersigned

15

judge.

16

the motion for recusal.

On April 1, 2013, Defendant Keith Aaron Vann

After considering Defendant’s submission, the Court denies

17
18

On April 3,

DISCUSSION
Defendant moves for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 and 144.

19

Section 455 provides that a judge “shall disqualify himself in any

20

proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

21

questioned.”

22

a “timely and sufficient affidavit” averring that the judge before

23

whom the case is pending “has a personal bias or prejudice” either

24

against the party or in favor of any adverse party.

25

finds a § 144 motion timely and the affidavit legally sufficient,

26

the judge must proceed no further and another judge must be

27

assigned to hear the matter.

28

Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980).

Section 144 provides for recusal where a party files

If a judge

28 U.S.C. § 144; United States v.
Although Defendant’s

1

motion here does not provide a legally sufficient basis for

2

recusal, Judge Gonzalez Rogers, out of an abundance of caution,

3

requested that his motion be reassigned.

4
5

Defendant appears to raise three grounds for recusal, none of
which is availing:

6

First, he contends that Judge Gonzalez Rogers displayed a

7

“clear bias and prejudice” toward him by delaying her ruling on

8

his request for permission to file electronically in this case.

9

Affidavit of Keith Aaron Vann ¶ 20.

Defendant moved for

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

permission to file electronically ten days before he moved for

11

recusal; this brief delay in ruling on his motion does not evince

12

bias.

13

“the alleged prejudice was not extrajudicial.”

14

Carignan, 600 F.2d 762, 763-64 (9th Cir. 1979).

15

More importantly, this delay cannot support recusal because
United States v.

Second, Defendant argues that Judge Gonzalez Rogers must

16

recuse herself because she previously sat on the Alameda County

17

Superior Court, where another judge denied his motion to dismiss

18

this action before the case was removed.

19

assert that Judge Gonzalez Rogers -- who was no longer sitting on

20

the Alameda County Superior Court when this action was filed --

21

played any part in that decision.1

22

requiring federal judges to recuse themselves from cases heard by

23

other judges on the state courts where they sat previously.

Defendant does not

Nor does he cite any case law

Thus,

24
25
26
27
28

1

This fact distinguishes the present case from cases like Amaya v.
Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co., 59 Cal. 2d 295 (1963), which Defendant
cites in his motion. In Amaya, a California Supreme Court justice
recused himself from hearing a case that he had previously heard and
decided while sitting as a judge on a lower court.

2

1

Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ prior judicial service on the Alameda

2

County Superior Court does not provide a basis for recusal here.

3

Third and finally, Defendant argues that Judge Gonzalez

4

Rogers must recuse herself because, Defendant alleges, she

5

received “illegal payments” from the State of California during

6

her tenure on the Alameda County Superior Court.

7

Defendant does not describe the nature of these allegedly illegal

8

payments and, in any event, has not provided any basis for these

9

allegations in the documents attached to his affidavit.

Mot. 7.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Accordingly, this allegation does not provide a legitimate basis

11

for recusal here.

12

CONCLUSION

13

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion to recuse

14
15

Judge Gonzalez Rogers (Docket No. 26) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: 4/8/2013

18
19

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

cc: YGR

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3