Ryan v. Hyden et al

Filing 133

ORDER Denying 131 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate reconsideration is warranted. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 9/16/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jao)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

MYKAL S. RYAN,
v.

Plaintiff,

TIMOTHY M. HYDEN, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 13cv0090 JAH (KSC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
[Doc. No. 131]

15

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order

16

denying his motion for recusal. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits

17

a court to relieve a party from judgment or an order for (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,

18

or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation or

19

misconduct; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or

20

discharged; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

21

Plaintiff argues the Court erred in failing to recuse from the action. He reiterates

22

argument made in support of his original motion and further argues the Court ignored

23

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994. In Liteky, the Supreme Court discussed the

24

“extrajudicial source” doctrine and determined that while an “extrajudicial source” is not

25

necessary, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or

26

partiality motion.” Id. at 554 - 55. The Court further explained that “only in the rarest

27

circumstances,” will judicial rulings “evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism

28

required. . .when no extrajudicial source is involved.” Id.

13cv90

1

Although this Court found Plaintiff’s allegations centered around judicial

2

proceedings and not a extrajudicial source, the Court also found no circumstances

3

supporting a personal bias or prejudice existed and that Plaintiff failed to present any

4

grounds to demonstrate this Court has acted improperly.

5

allegations of misconduct which center around this Court’s rejection of his many

6

documents do not evidence favoritism or antagonism as required for recusal.

7

Therefore, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate reconsideration is warranted.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is

9
10

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s

DENIED.
DATED: September 16, 2013

11
12
13

JOHN A. HOUSTON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

13cv90