Banks v. ACS Education et al
Filing
294
ORDER denying 293 Request for Recusal. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 7/25/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cge)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALFRED BANKS,
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13
ACS EDUCATION CORP., et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 10cv1886 AJB (CAB)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR RECUSAL
[Doc. No. 293]
On July 18, 2012, Plaintiff Alfred Banks filed a motion requesting the recusal of Judge Anthony
17
J. Battaglia from the above captioned case. [Doc. No. 293.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court
18
DENIES Plaintiff’s request.
19
20
Discussion
The Plaintiff seeks Judge Battaglia’s recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 and 455(a). [Doc. No.
21
293.] The substantive standard under these sections is “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of
22
all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned.” United States
23
v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453–54 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (quoting U.S. v. Studley, 783 F.2d
24
934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986)). This standard is strictly construed and requires more than “unsubstantiated
25
suggestion of personal bias or prejudice.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir.2008)
26
(internal quotation omitted). Adverse “judicial rulings . . . and ordinary admonishments (whether or not
27
legally supportable)” will not warrant recusal. Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
28
1
10CV1886
1
Here, Plaintiff’s motion makes numerous charged accusations, but fails to substantiate any
2
grounds for recusal. Indeed, stripped of hyperbole, Plaintiff’s grievance amounts to plain dissatisfaction
3
with this Court’s rulings. For example, Plaintiff charges “ridicule [of] the Plaintiff’s Reputation,” [Doc.
4
No. 293 at 4:11-12], alleging that Judge Battaglia stated during the June 7, 2011 hearing that “we trial to
5
get rid of Pro Se cases as fast.” [Id. at 5:10-11; 9:26-27; 10:11-13.] However, the Plaintiff fails to
6
factually support this charge with anything revealing underlying bias or prejudice or by citation to the
7
transcript from the June 7, 2011 hearing. Similarly, the Plaintiff also asserts that the Court’s decision to
8
dismiss certain Defendants with leave to amend was inappropriate, but proffers nothing suggesting bias
9
or prejudice on the part of Judge Battaglia. [Doc. No. 293 at 8:25-9:3.] While Plaintiff certainly makes
10
clear his dissatisfaction with several adverse rulings and admonishments from the Court, such dissatis-
11
faction alone does not warrant recusal. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for
12
recusal is DENIED.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
DATED: July 25, 2012
16
17
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
10CV1886
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?