Cross v. Jaeger et al

Filing 454

ORDER. ECF No. 441 Motion for Recusal is denied; ECF No. 444 Motion Requesting Issuance of Subpoenas and Service is denied as moot; ECF No. 447 Motion to Extend Copy Work Account is granted and copy work limit will be incre ased to $71 (Copy of order mailed to NDOC inmate services); ECF No. 451 Motion Requesting Court Docket Sheet is granted (mailed on 10/25/2017). Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/25/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 ANTHONY CROSS, Case No. 3:13-cv-00433-MMD-WGC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 11 RON JAEGER, et al., 12 Defendant. 13 14 I. SUMMARY 15 Following summary judgment proceedings, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed 16 to trial on counts I, I-A, V, V-A for First Amendment retaliation based on Defendant’s 17 refusal to provide the disciplinary form III and handling of an emergency. (ECF No. 313.) 18 In an attempt to resolve routine issues before trial and to assist Plaintiff in light of his pro 19 se status, the Court held a pretrial status conference on October 5, 2017. Since that 20 hearing, the parties have filed numerous motions. This Order addresses some of the 21 motions pending before the Court. 22 II. MOTION FOR RECUSAL (ECF No. 441) 23 Plaintiff asks for recusal based on how the Court has addressed his motions and 24 the Court’s rulings, including rulings on exhibits that Plaintiff contends contradicted with 25 the Order Regarding Trial and witnesses identified for trial. 26 The substantive standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455 27 is: “[W]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the 28 judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 1 934, 939 (9th Cir.1986) (quotation omitted). Normally, the alleged bias must stem from an 2 “extrajudicial source.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-56 (1994). “[J]udicial 3 rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Id. 4 “[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the 5 course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a 6 bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that 7 would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. 8 Plaintiff’s motion at best demonstrates disagreement with the Court’s rulings. 9 Plaintiff may appeal the Court’s rulings, but his disagreement with the Court’s rulings is 10 not a basis to seek recusal. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion requesting recusal (ECF No. 11 441) is denied. 12 III. 13 MOTION REQUESTING (ECF No. 444) ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS AND SERVICE 14 Plaintiff requests that a subpoena be issued for Defendant Ron Jaeger and Warden 15 Brian Williams to testify at trial and for the same to be served. As a party, Ron Jaeger is 16 required to attend trial which will permit Plaintiff to call him during Plaintiff’s case-in-chief. 17 As for Warden Williams, because of his position as Warden and because Defendant has 18 represented that the Warden will be testifying at trial, the Court directs Defendant’s 19 counsel to make Warden Williams available to testify as part of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief. 20 Accordingly, it is unnecessary for these two witnesses to be subpoenaed to appear at trial. 21 Plaintiff’s motion requesting issuance of subpoenas (ECF No. 444) is denied as moot. 22 IV. MOTION TO EXTEND COPY WORK ACCOUNT (ECF No. 447) 23 In light of the number of exhibits that Plaintiff has identified, Plaintiff will need to 24 bring his own copy and an extra copy. However, as the Court noted at the October 5, 2017 25 status conference, the Courtroom Administrator will assist in making a copy if Plaintiff is 26 unable to have an extra copy of his exhibits. Plaintiff’s motion to extend copy work (ECF 27 No. 447) is granted. Plaintiff’s copy work limit will be increased to $71.00. 28 /// 2 1 2 3 V. MOTION REQUESTING COURT DOCKET SHEET (ECF NO. 451) The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the docket sheet (ECF No. 451). The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet for this case. 4 DATED THIS 25th day of October 2017. 5 6 7 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?