Pappas v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 41

ORDER Denying 39 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Denying 40 Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/23/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 GEORGE C. PAPPAS, Plaintiff(s), 11 12 vs. 13 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 14 Defendant(s). 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:13-cv-00607-APG-NJK ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO RECUSE AND FOR RECONSIDERATION (Docket Nos. 39, 40) 16 Pending before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff. First, Plaintiff has filed a 17 motion for the undersigned to recuse herself from this case. See Docket No. 40. Plaintiff argues that 18 recusal is warranted because the undersigned vacated the hearing on his attorney’s motion to 19 withdraw and granted the motion upon a showing of good cause. Id. at 2. A party’s disagreement 20 with the Court’s rulings is not a sufficient basis for recusal. See United States v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 21 1144, 1149-50 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“judicial 22 rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”). “[O]pinions 23 formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current 24 proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless 25 they display a deep-seated favortism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” 26 Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Here, the Court found good cause for the withdrawal of counsel, and also 27 determined in its discretion that a hearing was not required. See Docket No. 26. The Court discerns 28 nothing in that order requiring recusal. Accordingly, the motion to recuse is hereby DENIED. 1 Plaintiff also filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s order at Docket No. 26 granting the 2 motion to withdraw and vacating the hearing on that motion. See Docket No. 39. This is the second 3 motion to reconsider that order. See Docket No. 29. The pending motion to reconsider does not 4 provide sufficient grounds to reconsider the prior order, see, e.g., Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. 5 Co., Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 156928, *6 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (outlining standards for motions 6 for reconsideration), and for the reasons already stated, the Court finds that its prior order was 7 correct. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 DATED: December 23, 2013 10 11 12 ______________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?