Liu v. UC Berkeley/UC Regents
Filing
24
ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 21 Motion to Disqualify Judge (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
AMY LIU,
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 15-cv-4958-PJH
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY JUDGE
UC BERKELEY/UC REGENTS,
Defendant.
12
13
14
Plaintiff Amy Liu seeks an order disqualifying the undersigned district judge under
15
28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), 455(b)(2), and 455(b)(3). In her motion, plaintiff states that “the
16
background of Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton’s career as a public defendant attorney who
17
served public school for so many years before, I don’t feel comfortable in having her be
18
the judge for all further proceedings in this case about a public school.” Dkt. 21, ¶ 5.
19
This case was randomly assigned to the undersigned pursuant to the court's
20
Assignment Plan, as set forth in General Order 44. The general rule in federal court is
21
that a judge should handle the cases assigned to him or her unless a legitimate reason
22
for recusal exists. See United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008).
23
Legitimate reasons for recusal are outlined in two statutes – 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 and 144 –
24
and in § 3(C) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
25
Section 455 provides in relevant part:
26
27
(a) Any . . . judge . . . shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
28
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
1
...
2
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in
controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law
served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or
the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
3
4
5
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness
concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the
merits of the particular case in controversy;
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
28 U.S.C. § 455.
Although plaintiff’s motion does not invoke 28 U.S.C. § 144, that section provides,
in relevant part:
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a
timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is
pending has a personal bias or prejudice either 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.
14
15
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or
prejudice exists . . . .
16
17
28 U.S.C. § 144. If a judge finds a § 144 motion timely and the affidavit legally sufficient,
18
the judge must proceed no further and another judge must be assigned to hear the
19
matter. 28 U.S.C. § 144; U.S. v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980).
20
Under both § 144 and § 455, the standard is whether “a reasonable person with
21
knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably
22
be questioned.” Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008). A
23
“reasonable person” is not “hyper-sensitive or unduly suspicious,” but rather a “well-
24
informed, thoughtful observer.” See id. (citing Holland, 519 F.3d at 913 (quotations
25
omitted).
26
While the test for personal bias is the same under both statutes, the procedural
27
requirements of the sections are different. Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867. Section 144
28
“expressly conditions relief upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient affidavit.” Id.
2
1
(cit
tations omitted). If the judge to whom the m
e
w
motion is dir
rected dete
ermines that the
t
2
acc
companying affidavit specifically alleges fac stating g
s
cts
grounds for recusal un
r
nder § 144,
3
“the legal suff
ficiency of the affidavit has been established and the m
t
t
d,
motion mus be
st
4
ref
ferred to an
nother judge for a dete
e
ermination o its merits Id. (citat
of
s.”
tion omitted
d).
5
An affid
davit filed pursuant to § 144 “is n legally s
p
not
sufficient un
nless it spec
cifically
6
alle
eges facts that fairly support the contention that the jud exhibits bias or pr
t
dge
s
rejudice
7
directed toward a party that stems from an ext
t
f
trajudicial s
source.” Id. at 868 (cit
.
tation
8
om
mitted).
9
It appe
ears that the only basis for plaintif motion is the unde
e
s
ff’s
ersigned’s p
previous
em
mployment as a public defender. That, stand
a
ding alone, provides n basis on which to
no
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
to
question the undersigned’s impartia
u
ality. And t the exten that the c
nt
court under
rstands
12
pla
aintiff’s cont
tention that the unders
t
signed “serv public school for s many ye
rved
so
ears
13
bef
fore,” the court finds no basis for it, nor does plaintiff explain what was intended by the
n
r
14
alle
egation.
15
Plaintif declarat
ff’s
tion does not add any facts that w
would sugg
gest the und
dersigned’s
16
impartiality might reason
nably be questioned, a it states o
as
only that “[i]t may be v
very hard
17
for Hon. Phyll J. Hamilt to cond
r
lis
ton
duct a fair ju
udgment on a lot of fur
n
rther court
18
pro
oceedings,” and that “i may not be fair for H
”
it
b
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton as well so a random
o
m
19
re-selection of a judge should be th best choice.” See D 21-1, ¶ 14.
o
he
Dkt.
20
21
Accord
dingly, plain
ntiff’s motion is DENIE D. The hea
n
aring set fo February 17, 2016
or
V
.
is VACATED.
22
23
24
25
26
IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Febru
uary 8, 2016
6
__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge
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?