Bennett v. State of Nevada

Filing 13

ORDER denying ECF No. 10 Motion to Recuse; denying ECF No. 11 Motion for Subpoena. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/17/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ______________________________________ ) ) GREGORY J. BENNETT, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) STATE OF NEVADA, ) ) Respondent. ) ) 3:16-cv-00420-RCJ-WGC ORDER 12 13 Petitioner Gregory Bennett is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of 14 Corrections. He filed a Petition for a Writ of Prohibition in this Court. The Magistrate Judge 15 recommended dismissing the Petition without prejudice because Petitioner complained of 16 constitutional violations at his trial in state court that were not cognizable under Heck v. 17 Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Court agreed. Petitioner has now asked the undersigned 18 to recuse. The Court denies the motion. Judgment has been entered, and Petitioner has no 19 standing to request recusal of a judge before whom no action is pending. See United States v. 20 Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 879–80 (9th Cir. 1980) (Kennedy, J.) (holding that absent exceptional 21 circumstances, grounds for disqualification must be raised before the judicial action at issue). 22 There are no exceptional circumstances here. Anyway, nowhere in his motion does Petitioner 23 identify any source of alleged bias. 24 1 2 3 1 of 2 CONCLUSION 1 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Recuse (ECF No. 10) and the Motion for 3 Subpoena (ECF No. 11) are DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated this 30th day ofday of October, 2016. DATED: This 17th September, 2016. 6 7 8 _____________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 2 of 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?