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)
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?