Lewis v. Allen et al

Filing 139

ORDER DENYING P's 125 Motion to recuse; DENYING P's # 133 Motion to be transferred; and, DENYING P's # 136 Motion/Notice re transfer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 3/7/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

ANTHONY LEWIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
J. ALLEN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
PRESENT:

3:10-CV-0083-RCJ (VPC)
MINUTES OF THE COURT
March 7, 2012

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
In this civil rights action, brought pro se by prisoner Anthony Lewis, the plaintiff has
filed a “Motion to Recuse Based on Impartiality” [sic] (#125), requesting that the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge recuse from the case. Defendants opposed the motion (#128),
and no reply was filed. Plaintiff points to prior rulings in this case as the basis for the request for
recusal.
Recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Under section 144, a party seeking
recusal must set forth, in an affidavit, facts and reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists.
See 28 U.S.C. § 144. The standard for recusal under sections 144 and 455 is “whether a
reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality
might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986).
The alleged prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source; a judge’s prior adverse ruling is
not sufficient cause for recusal. Id. The challenged judge should rule on the legal sufficiency of
the recusal motion in the first instance Id. at 940.
Plaintiff’s motion to recuse is without merit. Plaintiff has shown no reason for the
judge’s impartiality in this case to be questioned. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion to recuse (#125)
is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s motion for plaintiff to be transferred (2nd set) (#133) is DENIED. In plaintiff’s
motion to notice abuse and harassment (#136), plaintiff again requests a transfer and that motion
is also DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk