Warne v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 296

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 12/15/2017.(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/15/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOEL JENNINGS WARNE, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No.16-cv-06773-JSC ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 294 & 295 Defendants. 12 13 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 14 455(a), (b)(1), (b)(4). (Dkt. No. 294.) “[A] judge has as strong a duty to sit when there is no 15 legitimate reason to recuse as [s]he does to recuse when the law and facts require.” Clemens v. 16 U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citation and 17 quotation marks omitted). “Since a federal judge is presumed to be impartial, the party seeking 18 disqualification bears a substantial burden to show that the judge is biased.” Harper v. Lugbauer, 19 2012 WL 734167, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2012) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). 20 Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification raises a litany of concerns with respect to the Court’s 21 bias, prejudice, and impartiality, none of which are founded. See United States v. Holland, 519 22 F.3d 909, 914–15 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the two-part test is (1) whether “a reasonable third- 23 party observer who “understand[s] all the relevant facts” and has examined the record and law— 24 not a “hypersensitive or unduly suspicious person”—would conclude that there is an appearance 25 of bias, and (2) whether the court concludes that it cannot impartially “administer justice without 26 respect to persons.”). Nor does the Court or any member of her household have a “financial 27 interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.” Nachshin v. AOL, 28 LLC, 663 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 1 2 3 4 5 motion for recusal is DENIED. However, for reasons unrelated to Plaintiff’s motion, the undersigned recuses herself from this case and requests that the case be reassigned. All pending dates and deadlines, including the date of Plaintiff’s deposition, remain in place unless and until they reset by the newly assigned judge. 6 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 294 and 295. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: December 15, 2017 9 10 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?