Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01080/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01080-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1080-DMS (MDD)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO RECUSE

[Doc. No. 60]

vs.

CITY OF CARLSBAD, et al.,

Defendants.

On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff brought the instant Motion to Recuse. (Doc. No. 60). 

On December 23, 2011, Defendants filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's motion. (Doc.

No. 74). Plaintiff filed a Reply on December 28, 2011. (Doc. No. 83). For the reasons that

follow, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 30, 2011, the Court conducted a telephonic Case Management Conference

(CMC) in this case. (Doc. No. 50). As noted in the Court's previous Order, Plaintiff expressed

his desire to record the conference. The Court indicated it would not allow Plaintiff to record

the conference. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion that he "immediately stated he would be happy

to turn the recorder off," Plaintiff made a statement to the effect that the Judge's denial of

Plaintiff's recording request was just another attempt to keep him from getting evidence against

the Government. It was at that time the Court decided to conduct the CMC in Court so an

- 1 - 11cv1080-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 84 Filed 12/29/11 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

official record could be made. See Order of November 30, 2011. Rather than allow Plaintiff to

engage in a prolonged diatribe the Court decided to conclude the telephonic conference and

reset the CMC to a time and place when a full record of the proceedings could be made and a

transcript would be available to all. 

On December 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Recuse. (Doc. No. 60). 

Plaintiff alleges that the Court should be recused on the ground that the Court has no legal or

ethical right to prohibit the recording of a "public interaction" "other than in a court building..." 

(Pl's Mtn. at 4). Other than providing five pages of vituperative asseveration, Plaintiff offers no

supporting law or evidence to substantiate his claim. The Court will construe Plaintiff motion

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. 

II. APPLICABLE LAW

The court has various internal mechanisms to reduce the risk of conflict. In Re Bernard,

31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994). "If a judge notices a conflict in a case already assigned to

him, he usually removes himself long before the parties learn of the assignment." Id. Despite

these precautions, occasionally a party comes to believe that a judge should be disqualified from

his case. Id. 

Recusal is governed in federal cases by the application of 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. 

The Ninth Circuit has held that the "substantive standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and

28 U.S.C. § 455 is the same: ‘[W]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts

would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’" U.S. v.

Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (quoting U.S. v. Studley, 783

F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986). This objective inquiry should be made from the perspective of a

reasonable observer who is fully informed "of all the surrounding facts and circumstances."

Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 1302 (2000) (denying direct appeal and

denying certiorari) (separate statement of Chief Justice Rehnquist considering

self-disqualification); United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 914 (9th Cir. 2008) ("The

reasonable third-party observer is not a partly informed man-in-the-street but rather someone

who understands all the relevant facts and has examined the record and law.") (internal

- 2 - 11cv1080-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 84 Filed 12/29/11 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

quotations omitted). Put differently, the reasonable person in this context means, "a

well-informed, thoughtful observer as opposed to a hypersensitive or unduly suspicious person."

Clemens v. U.S. District Court for the Central District of Ca.,428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir.

2005) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 144, the party seeking recusal is responsible for filing a timely and

sufficient affidavit showing the judge's bias or prejudice in accordance with the statute. Further, 

§ 144 provides that the Court is to disqualify itself on the question of recusal if a legally

sufficient affidavit is submitted. U.S. v. Montecalvo, 545 F.2d 684, 685 (9th Cir. 1976). 

 In addition, 28 U.S.C.§ 455 provides that recusal motions “must be decided by the very

judge whose impartiality is being questioned". In Re Bernard, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994)

citing, United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980). The inquiry covers a judge's

interests, relationships, biases, or prejudices and requires them "to be evaluated on an objective

basis." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994). 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Title 28 U.S.C. § 455

The Court finds recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 is not required based upon Plaintiff's

motion. Considered as a whole, Plaintiff appears distressed that the Court declined to allow the

tape recording of the telephonic case management and further declined to allow Plaintiff to go

off on a tangent about general judicial authority. (Doc. No. 30 at 2). An unfavorable ruling

against Plaintiff is not a factual basis which shows bias. If that were the case, the losing party at

every dispute would have reason to claim the judge was biased. 

Plaintiff’s motion for recusal is not supported on any other grounds commonly

addressed in a § 455 inquiry. Plaintiff has not presented any evidence of close relationships

with the parties or the attorneys in the case, any financial interest in the outcome of the case or

any political interest in the outcome of the case. The Court specifically denies Plaintiff’s

allegation that the Court sought to punish Plaintiff by making him appear in person despite

knowing "full well...that it's a major hardship for [Plaintiff] to get down town [sic] for hearings

that could otherwise be decided without an appearance or an appearance over the phone." (Doc.

- 3 - 11cv1080-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 84 Filed 12/29/11 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

No. 60 at 5). Indeed, nothing has transpired in this case that would require recusal. 

B. Title 28 U.S.C. § 144

Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 is also not supported by Plaintiff's motion. Not only does

Plaintiff’s motion fail by the same reasonable observer standard as § 455, Plaintiff has failed to

satisfy a threshold requirement unique to § 144:

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and

files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the

matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him

or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further

therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 144. As discussed above, it is for this Court to determine, in the first instance,

whether Plaintiff’s affidavit provides sufficient facts to warrant a further inquiry by another

Court regarding recusal. See U.S. v. Montecalvo, 545 F.2d 684, 685 (9th Cir. 1976). This Court

finds Plaintiff’s allegations, addressed herein, wholly insufficient to generate any reasonable

belief that the Court is biased or prejudiced against Plaintiff. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 29, 2011

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 4 - 11cv1080-DMS (MDD)

Case 3:11-cv-01080-CAB-KSC Document 84 Filed 12/29/11 Page 4 of 4