Ramirez v. Warden

Filing 97

ORDER by Judge Whyte denying 96 Motion for Recusal and denying 96 Motion to Stay. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2010)

Ramirez v. Warden

Doc. 97

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: 10/18/10 On September 13, 2010, petitioner moved for recusal. On September 15, 2010, the court denied his motion for recusal. Petitioner now moves for rehearing of his motion for recusal and for a stay of proceedings and seeks to have another district judge rule on his motions. Petitioner appears to believe that the challenged judge should not rule on a motion to recuse himself. However, the Ninth Circuit has "held repeatedly that the challenged judge himself should rule on the legal sufficiency of a recusal motion in the first instance." United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986). The court has already considered petitioner's motion for recusal and found it to be legally insufficient. The court thus denies his motion for rehearing and for a stay of proceedings. v. JAMES A. YATES, Warden, et. al., Respondents. ANTHONY M. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, No. C-03-1817 RMW ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS [Re Docket No. 96] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION E-FILED on 10/18/10

RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS--No. C-03-1817 RMW CCL

Dockets.Justia.com