Rocha v. Zavaras et al

Filing 87

ORDER denying 80 Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal. by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 6/21/2011.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00357-CMA-MEH
MARCO A. ROCHA,
Plaintiff,
v.
S. TWILLEGER, in an individual capacity,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (Doc. # 80).
For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
A judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The goal of this provision is to avoid
even the appearance of impropriety. See Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp.,
486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988). Pursuant to § 455(a), a court is not required to accept all
factual allegations as true, “and the test is whether a reasonable person, knowing all
the relevant facts, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” Glass v. Pfeffer,
849 F.2d 1261, 1268 (10th Cir. 1988) (internal quotations omitted). The standard is
wholly objective, and the inquiry is limited to outward manifestations and reasonable

inferences drawn therefrom. See United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir.
1993).
Subsection (b) of § 455 sets forth more particularized situations in which a judge
must disqualify herself, see Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 871, none of which applies to the
instant action. Plaintiff has made no showing that reasonably questions this Court’s
impartiality. Instead, Plaintiff merely disagrees with the Court’s rulings in this case
and a prior case that was dismissed with prejudice. See Rocha v. CCCF Admin.,
No. 09-cv-01432, 2010 WL 1333185 (D. Colo. Apr. 2, 2010). A litigant’s disagreement
with judicial rulings is insufficient to demonstrate that disqualification is appropriate
pursuant to § 455(a) or (b). See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)
(“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality
motion.”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (Doc. # 80) is DENIED.
DATED: June

21

, 2011
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2