Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05466/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05466-21/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD GLASS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. BEER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05466-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR RECUSAL OF UNDERSIGNED, WITH

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 156)

ORDER REQUESTING DEFENDANTS’

COUNSEL FACILITATE PLAINTIFF’S

ACCESS TO HIS LEGAL MATERIAL FOR

THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING

THE EIGHT OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY

REQUESTS, AND REQUIRING COUNSEL TO

FILE A STATUS REPORT WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS

(Doc. 156)

I. Order

A. Motion for Recusal

Plaintiff Donald Glass (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 25, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the

///

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05466-OWW -SMS Document 161 Filed 08/16/07 Page 1 of 3
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

 Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 21, 2007. Although the filing of a notice of appeal generally 1

divests a district court of jurisdiction to determine the “substantial rights” at issue in an action during the pendency

of the appeal, Pyrodyne Corp. v. Pyrotronics Corp., 847 F. 2d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1988), an exception to this rule

exists where a deficiency in the notice of appeal “is clear to the district court.” Ruby v. Secretary of the United

States Navy, 365 F. 2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966). In such a case the district court may proceed with the case

“knowing that it has not been deprived of jurisdiction.” Id. Because it is completely “clear to the district court” that

no appeal lies from the court’s discovery orders, the court knows “that it has not been deprived of jurisdiction” over

this action. Therefore this action shall proceed in spite of the filing of June 21, 2007 appeal.

2

undersigned recuse herself from presiding over any further proceedings in this case. Defendants did 1

not file a response. 

“A judge is required to disqualify [her]self if h[er] impartiality might reasonably be

questioned, or if [s]he has a personal bias or prejudice for or against a party.” Hasbrouck v. Texaco,

Inc., 842 F.2d 1034, 1045 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), 455(b)(1)), aff’d, 496 U.S.

543, 110 S.Ct. 2535 (1990). “The bias must stem from an extrajudicial source and not be based

solely on information gained in the course of the proceedings.” Id. (citing In re Beverly Hills

Bancorp, 752 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1984)). “‘Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a

valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.’” In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir.

2004) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)). “‘In and of

themselves . . , they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the

rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no

extrajudicial source is involved.’” Id.

The basis for plaintiff’s motion is his dissatisfaction with the court’s rulings. Plaintiff

contends that with the exception of motions for extensions of time, all of plaintiff’s motions have

been denied and all of defendants’ motions have been granted. Plaintiff’s contention is without

merit, and in any event, the court’s rulings in this action provide no basis for recusal.

B. Access to Legal Property

The deadline for the completion of all discovery in this action was July 3, 2006. (Doc. 95.)

However, pursuant to the court’s order of November 16, 2006, plaintiff was permitted thirty days

within which to reformat and re-serve the following discovery requests: (1) Dill RFAs, Set One,

Numbers 16 and 17, (2) POD, Set One, Number 1, (3) POD, Set One, Number 8, (4) POD, Set One,

Case 1:04-cv-05466-OWW -SMS Document 161 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 3
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 Prison officials shall retain the discretion to fashion whatever procedure they deem necessary in light of 2

institutional safety and security concerns.

3

Number 9, (5) POD, Set Two, Number 1, (6) POD, Set Two, Number 4, and (7) POD, Set Three,

Number 1. (Doc. 124.) On March 23, 2007, and May 18, 2007, plaintiff was granted thirty-day

extensions of time to comply with November 16 order. (Docs. 143, 153.) In his June 25, 2007,

motion seeking recusal, plaintiff states that he is unable to reformat and re-serve his discovery

requests because his personal and legal property has been confiscated.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment has been pending for more than one year, and the

discovery issue set forth above is the only remaining issue to be resolved before plaintiff is required

to file a response to defendants’ motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). Defendants’ counsel is requested to

contact the Litigation Coordinator at CSP-Corcoran and attempt to facilitate some procedure which

will allow plaintiff to access his legal material, limited to what is necessary to reformat and re-serve

his eight discovery requests. Counsel shall file a status report within thirty days. 2

C. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the undersigned recuse herself, filed June 25, 2007,

is DENIED, with prejudice;

2. Defendants’ counsel is requested to contact the Litigation Coordinator at CSPCorcoran and attempt to facilitate some procedure which will allow plaintiff to access

his legal material, limited to what is necessary to reformat and re-serve his eight

discovery requests; and

3. Defendants’ counsel shall provide the court with a status report on this issue within

thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05466-OWW -SMS Document 161 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 3