Steshenko v. McKay et al

Filing 319

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO DISQUALIFY REFERRAL JUDGE re 290 Letter filed by Gregory Nicholas Steshenko. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on May 11, 2012. (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

GREGORY STESHENKO,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

THOMAS MCKAY, ET AL.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 09-CV-05543-RS (PSG)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO DISQUALIFY
REFERRAL JUDGE
(Re: Docket No. 290)

16
Plaintiff Gregory Steshenko (“Steshenko”) requests that I disqualify myself as the referral
17

judge in the above case. 1 Neither the Hospital Defendants nor the College Defendants have

18
responded to Steshenko’s request for disqualification. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), the request is
19
taken under submission without oral argument. Having reviewed the papers and considered
20
Steshenko’s arguments,
21
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Steshenko’s request for disqualification is DENIED.
22
Steshenko objects to certain rulings that I have made regarding a litany of discovery issues
23
that have been raised by the parties. In sum, Steshenko states that in light of prior rulings on these
24
issues, he is reluctant to raise any further discovery issues because he believes that I am “too
25
26
27
28

1

Steshenko filed a letter seeking my disqualification as the referral judge. His letter is deemed to be
a request for disqualification. Since making this request, Steshenko has moved the presiding judge
to remove discovery from me or to reassign it to a different judge. See Docket No. 311.
1
Case No.: C 09-5543 RS (PSG)
ORDER

1

overloaded” to address discovery issues and am prejudiced against his interests, so much so that he

2

fears that he cannot ever obtain a fair hearing.

3

Under 28 U.S.C. §455(a), a United States judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding

4

if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The purpose of the statute is to avoid even the

5

appearance of partiality. 2 Disqualification or recusal may be appropriate even in cases where no

6

partiality exists. 3 In determining whether disqualification is appropriate, the court must consider

7

“whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s

8

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 4 The reasonable person is not “hypersensitive or

9

unduly suspicious” but is a “well-informed, thoughtful observer.” 5 If the reasonable person would

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

not find a basis for partiality, the assigned judge should handle the case. 6 The merest

11

unsubstantiated suggestion of personal bias or prejudice does not warrant recusal. 7
Aside from disagreeing with my prior rulings, 8 Steshenko has shown no facts that would

12
13

cause a reasonable person to question my impartiality. Looking closely at the April 25 order,

14

Steshenko would see that in fact, many of the discovery rulings were favorable to him. 9 Even

15

putting aside any score between the parties, however, there is no appearance of partiality or

16

prejudice against Steshenko or his interests that would justify the recusal Steshenko has requested.

17
18
19
20

2

See Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.
2d 855 (1988).

21

3

See id.

22

4

United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008).

23

5

See id.

24

6

Id. at 912.

25

7

See id.

26

8

27
28

Steshenko has appealed both April 25 orders to the presiding judge, as is his right. See Docket No.
298.
9

See, e.g., Docket No. 286 at 5-7.
2

Case No.: C 09-5543 RS (PSG)
ORDER

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3

Dated:

5/11/2012

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: C 09-5543 RS (PSG)
ORDER