Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01081/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01081-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY WILLIAM HALLFORD,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1081 GEB GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL 

PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,

EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On November 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a document requesting the recusal of the

undersigned. Plaintiff questions the impartiality of this court without providing any substantive

basis for his vaguely stated concern that defendants are receiving “undue deference.” 

A judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if he has a personal bias or prejudice against a party, 

28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Remarks made during the course of a judicial proceeding that are critical

or hostile to a party or his case ordinarily will not support a bias or partiality claim unless they

reveal an extrajudicial source for the opinion, or “such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism

as to make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554, 114 S.Ct.

1147, 1157 (1994.) The decision regarding disqualification is made by the judge whose

Case 2:06-cv-01081-GEB-GGH Document 29 Filed 12/13/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

impartiality is at issue. Bernard v. Coyne, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994).

Where the source of alleged bias or prejudice is a judicial proceeding, plaintiff

must show a disposition on the part of the judge that “is so extreme as to display clear inability to

render fair judgment.” Id. at 488. “Opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced

or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not

constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or

antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. at 491. Bias is not found where the

judge has expressed anger or dissatisfaction or annoyance that are within the bounds of

reasonable behavior. Id.

This court's actions in this case do not support disqualification. The actions taken

have been an appropriate response to filings. The court's rulings do not reflect an extreme

disposition or deep-seated antagonism. They do not reflect animosity, partiality, or inability to

render a fair judgment in the instant action. They do not indicate bias, personal or otherwise, or

prejudice, personal or otherwise. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s November 17, 2006, request for

recusal is denied.

DATED: 12/12/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

hall1081.rec

Case 2:06-cv-01081-GEB-GGH Document 29 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 2