Lancaster v. State Of Nevada

Filing 111

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the plaintiff's 72 motion for recusal of Magistrate Judge McQuaid, and the same hereby is, DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED, plaintiff's 89 motion to stay is hereby DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/16/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

-RAM Lancaster v. State Of Nevada

Doc. 111

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 DOYLE D. LANCASTER, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Presently before the court is plaintiff Doyle Lancaster's motion for recusal of magistrate judge. (Doc. #72). To date, no response has been filed. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to stay this action pending resolution of the motion for recusal of the magistrate judge. (Doc. #89). The defendants have responded (doc. #94), and the plaintiff has replied, (doc. #98). The presiding judge determines whether recusal is warranted. United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 867­68 (9th Cir. 1978). The statute governing recusal, 28 U.S.C. § 455, is broad, requiring recusal "in any proceeding in which [a judge's] impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 n.8 (1988). However, section 455 recusal is not unlimited ­ the source of any alleged bias must be NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / 3:06-cv-00284-JCM-RAM ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

extrajudicial. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). Judicial bias or prejudice formed during current or prior proceedings is insufficient for recusal unless the judge's actions "display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Id. at 541; Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, judicial rulings will support a motion for recusal only "in the rarest of circumstances." Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Here, plaintiff lacks a reasonable, factual basis for questioning Magistrate Judge McQuaid's impartiality. Plaintiff cites the December 4, 2006, screening order (doc. #9) and the November 16, 2010, minute order (doc. #59) denying his motion for appointment of counsel (doc. #56) as evidence of bias. However, these rulings, formed while Magistrate Judge McQuaid presided over the matter, will not support disqualification. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff cites no extra-judicial facts indicating a "deepseated favoritism or antagonism." Id. at 541. Accordingly, recusal is not necessary in this case. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the plaintiff's motion for recusal of Magistrate Judge McQuaid (doc. #72) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to stay (doc. #89) is hereby DENIED as moot. Dated this 16th day of March, 2011.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

2