Young v. Intel Corporation et al

Filing 7

ORDER: Denying Motion to Recuse 6 . (see 3 page Order).(copy of order sent to Plaintiff). Signed on 1/29/09 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (ljl)

Young v. Intel Corporation et al

Doc. 7

FILED'09 \.TAN 29 i i (>7Usoc-oRP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R T H E DISTRICT O F O R E G O N

M A T T H E W R O B E R T YOUNG, Plaintiff,

Civil No. 08-1496-BR

ORDER

v.
INTEL CORPORAn O N and STEVE JOBS, Defendants,

M A T T H E W ~OBERT Y O U N G #6242666 ' S n a k e R i v e r Correctional Institution 777 Stanton Blvd. Ontario, O R 9 7 9 1 4 Plaintiff, Pro Se

I-ORDER

Dockets.Justia.com

HAGGERTY. C h i e f Judge: P l a i n t i f f filed t h i s a c t i o n o n D e c e m b e r 2 9 . 2 0 0 8 . T h e a c t i o n w a s a s s i g n e d r a n d o m l y t o T h e Honorable A n n a J. Brown. O n January 13, 2009. the court granted p l a i n t i f f s application to proceed in f o r m a pauperis, b u t dismissed p l a i n t i f f s Complaint without prejudice and w i t h leave t o r e - f i l e u p o n c u r i n g d e f i c i e n c i e s i n t h e p l e a d i n g s . See O p i n i o n a n d O r d e r o f J a n u a r y 1 3 , 2 0 0 9

[5].
O n January 14, 2009. p l a i n t i f f advanced a Motion to Recuse [6], arguing that t h e court h a d d e m o n s t r a t e d a "malicious m o r a l turpitude" t o w a r d plaintiff. P l a i n t i f f a l s o r e f e r e n c e d a n o t h e r m a t t e r p l a i n t i f f h a s b r o u g h t t h a t i s a s s i g n e d t o a n o t h e r J u d g e . T h e M o t i o n to R e c u s e w a s referred to me. T h e undersigned h a s p e r f o r m e d an i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e Record o f this l i t i g a t i o n . U n d e r 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 5 5 ( a ) . a federal j u d g e m u s t b e r e c u s e d " i n a n y p r o c e e d i n g i n w h i c h h i s [ o r her] i m p a r t i a l i t y m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y b e q u e s t i o n e d . " S u c h d e c i s i o n s a r e e v a l u a t e d b y a s k i n g w h e t h e r " a n o b j e c t i v e , d i s i n t e r e s t e d o b s e r v e r f u l l y i n f o r m e d o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g facts . . . [could] e n t e r t a i n s i g n i f i c a n t d o u b t t h a t j u s t i c e w o u l d b e d o n e a b s e n t r e c u s a l . . . . " U n i t e d S t a t e s

v. Lovaglia, 954 F.2d 811. 815 (2nd Cir. 1992) (citing DeLuca v. L o n g Island Lighting Co .· Inc.·
8 6 2 F . 2 d 4 2 7 , 4 2 8 - 2 9 ( 2 n d Cir. 1 9 8 8 » . R e c u s a l b e c o m e s p r o p e r w h e r e t h e r e e x i s t s " a p e r s o n a l b i a s o r p r e j u d i c e c o n c e r n i n g a party, o r p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f d i s p u t e d e v i d e n t i a r y facts c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g . " 2 8 U.S.C. § 4 5 5 ( b ) ( I ) . A r e v i e w i n g c o u r t m u s t c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r a j u d g e ' s a l l e g e d b i a s o r p r e j u d i c e s t e m s from an extrajudicial source. United States v. Faul, 748 F.2d 1204, 1211 (8th Cir. 1984). Without

2-0RDER

evidence o f a deep-seated antagonism t h a t w o u l d h a v e m a d e fair j u d g m e n t impossible. recusal motions s h o u l d b e denied. See Liteky v. United States. 5 1 0 U.S. 540. 555 (1994). P l a i n t i f f h a s p r o v i d e d n o b a s i s o r factual a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t s u p p o r t recusal. P l a i n t i f f s e e k s t h e recusal o f J u d g e B r o w n b e c a u s e o f p r i o r r u l i n g s a n d m a k e s n o s h o w i n g o f a n y t'extrajudicial source" o f a l l e g e d prejudice. J u d i c i a l r u l i n g s a l o n e " a l m o s t n e v e r c o n s t i t u t e a v a l i d b a s i s f o r a b i a s o r partiality motion." Liteky, 510 U.S. a t 555. "In a n d o f themselves . . . [judicial rulings] c a n n o t p o s s i b l y s h o w r e l i a n c e u p o n a n extrajudicial source; and c a n o n l y i n t h e r a r e s t circumstances evidence t h e degree o f favoritism o r antagonism required . . . w h e n no extrajudicial source i s involved." Id. T h i s c o u r t h a s r e v i e w e d t h e r u l i n g s i s s u e d b y J u d g e B r o w n a n d finds n o b a s i s t o s u s p e c t t h a t s h e h a r b o r s a n y p e r s o n a l b i a s a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f o r t h a t t h e r e is a n y o b j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s to question h e r impartiality. T h i s c o u r t h a s c o n d u c t e d a n independent e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e m a t t e r a n d is c o n f i d e n t that t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f this action b y Judge B r o w n will b e sufficiently s e n s i t i v e a n d reasonable. T h e r e i s n o s u b s t a n t i v e a p p e a r a n c e o f j u d i c i a l i m p r o p r i e t y a n d n o g r o u n d s p r e s e n t e d t h a t s u p p o r t t h e p l a i n t i f f s r e q u e s t for recusal.

CONCLUSION
P l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n t o R e c u s e [6] is DENIED.

I T IS S O O R D E R E D .
D A T E D this

- . l i d a y o f J a n u a r y . 2009.

A N C E R L. H A G G E United States District J u d g e

3 -ORDER