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)

Download PDF
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

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?