Rosalie Aubree Guancione v. State of California

Filing 7

ORDER denying 4 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 7/8/2014. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/8/2014: # 1 Certficate of Service) (ecg, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION IN RE: 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 CASE NOs. 5:14-cv-02541 EJD; 5:14-cv02542 EJD; 5:14-cv-02543 EJD ROSALIE AUBREE GUANCIONE, 12 Debtor. 13 14 ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL / ROSALIE A. GUANCIONE, 15 Plaintiff(s), 16 17 v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et. al., 18 Defendant(s). 19 / 20 On June 16, 2014, Appellant Rosalie Aubree Guancione (“Appellant”) filed certain 21 documents in each of the three cases captioned above which the court has construed as motions for 22 recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455.1 23 Under §§ 144 and 455, recusal is appropriate where “a reasonable person with knowledge of 24 all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonable be questioned.” Yagman 25 v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993). Such recusal may rest on either “actual bias or 26 1 27 28 Assuming Appellant filed the instant motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144, this court must pass on the legal sufficiency of the affidavit in the first instance. See Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (“Only after the legal sufficiency of the affidavit is determined does it become the duty of the judge to ‘proceed no further’ in the case.”). 1 CASE NOs. 5:14-cv-02541-EJD; 5:14-cv-02542 EJD; 5:14-cv-02543 EJD ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL 1 the appearance of bias.” Id. A district judge has a duty to disqualify himself “in any proceeding in 2 which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or where “he has a personal bias or prejudice 3 concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 4 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). However, “[f]ederal judges are obligated not to recuse themselves where 5 there is no reason to question their impartiality.” New York City Housing Develop. Corp. v. Hart 6 796 F.2d 976, 980 (7th Cir. 1986). 7 The court has carefully reviewed Appellant’s documents and finds no basis for 8 disqualification based on the list of involved parties identified therein. In addition, Plaintiff’s other 9 contentions fail to describe a valid basis for the undersigned’s recusal. Indeed, the assertion that the undersigned is disqualified due to a purported “self-recusal” in a 2008 state court case has been 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 raised by Appellant before and rejected.2 The court rejects it again here. See Pesnell v. Arsenault, 12 543 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that “alleged bias must usually stem from an 13 extrajudicial source.”); Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C. v. 950.80 Acres of Land, 525 F.3d 554, 557 (7th 14 Cir. 2008) (“Disqualification is case-specific; the statute does not put a whole subject matter out of 15 bounds to a judge with no concrete investment in a particular dispute.”). Moreover, the fact that 16 Appellant may have named the undersigned in a lawsuit after the case was assigned to this court is 17 not a valid basis for recusal.3 See United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939-40 (9th Cir. 1986) 18 (“A judge is not disqualified by a litigant’s suit or threatened suit against him.”). 19 20 For these reasons, Appellant’s motion for recusal is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: July 8, 2014 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 See Docket Item No. 63 in Riverwalk Holdings, Ltd. v. Guancione, Case No. 5:12-cv05748 EJD. 3 See Docket Item No. 42 in Riverwalk Holdings, in which document the undersigned appears for the first time as a named defendant. 2 CASE NOs. 5:14-cv-02541-EJD; 5:14-cv-02542 EJD; 5:14-cv-02543 EJD ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL

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?