Hayes v. Idaho Department of Corrections et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Case Reassignment to Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill (Dkt. 8 ) is GRANTED IN PART. The Clerk of Court shall randomly reassign this action to a different United States District Judge. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)(Mailed on 8/17/2017.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MICHAEL T. HAYES,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00275-EJL
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION; ALBERTO
RAMIREZ; TERRI JO KIRTLEY;
TIMOTHY REED McKAY; BRETT
PHILLIPS; BRET R. KIMMEL;
ARVEL DEWAYNE SHEDD;
DERRIK GOVERNOR; FELIX DIAZ;
TRAVIS COWAN; DAVID RANCK;
MARC ANTHONY AIELLO; and
KLINTON R. HUSK,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Michael T. Hayes is a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho Department of
Correction, currently incarcerated at Idaho State Correctional Center. Pending before the
Court in this civil rights matter is Plaintiff’s Motion for Case Reassignment to Chief
Judge B. Lynn Winmill, in which Plaintiff requests that the undersigned recuse himself
from this case. (Dkt. 8.)
Having fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record and that oral argument is
unnecessary. See D. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1. Accordingly, the Court enters the following
Order granting in part Plaintiff’s Motion.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

1.

Standard of Law
The standard for recusal is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 455. Section 455 provides as

follows:
(a)

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned.

(b)

He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)

Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding;

(2)

Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in
controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law
served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or
the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3)

Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness
concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the
merits of the particular case in controversy;

(4)

He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or
minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the
subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any
other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of
the proceeding;

(5)

He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship
to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)

Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee
of a party;

(ii)

Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii)

Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

(iv)

Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in
the proceeding.

Recusal is not required where only vague allegations of bias and prejudice are
asserted, or where those allegations arise from the adjudication of claims or cases by the
Court during the course of litigation. Such alleged errors are “the basis for appeal, not
recusal.” In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 2004).
2.

Discussion
Plaintiff has not established that the Court is actually biased against him or that

any of the other grounds set forth in § 455(b) apply. See id. (describing bias requiring
recusal as “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that made fair judgment impossible”)
(internal citation and punctuation omitted). However, because Plaintiff alleges that he has
a judicial misconduct complaint currently pending against the undersigned, the
undersigned concludes that recusal is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Case Reassignment to Chief Judge
B. Lynn Winmill (Dkt. 8) is GRANTED IN PART. The Clerk of Court shall randomly
reassign this action to a different United States District Judge.
August 16, 2017

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3