Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01162/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01162-11/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

THOMAS V. HELEAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1162 LKK EFB P

vs.

M. D. D. HAWLEY,

ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 15, 2007, the court found that plaintiff had not filed an

opposition or a statement of no opposition to defendant Hawley’s motion for summary judgment. 

The court directed plaintiff to file an opposition or a statement of no opposition within 20 days

and explained that if he did not, this action would be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to obey this

court’s orders and Local Rules of Practice. The 20 days have passed and plaintiff has not filed

an opposition or a statement of no opposition. Instead, on August 21, 2007, plaintiff filed a

motion to disqualify the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). For the reasons explained

below, the court denies plaintiff’s motion and recommends that this action be dismissed without

prejudice.

////

Case 2:06-cv-01162-LKK -EFB Document 40 Filed 11/05/07 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

2

I. Motion for Disqualification

A judge must 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 (1994.) The decision

regarding disqualification is made by the judge whose 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.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 541. “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 deepseated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. at 555. Bias is

not found where the judge has expressed anger or dissatisfaction or annoyance that are within the

bounds of reasonable behavior. Id.

The test for disqualification under section 455 is whether a reasonable person with

knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be

questioned. United States v. Winston, 613 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1980). Evaluations of

impartiality, bias or prejudice under section 455 are made using an objective standard. Id. 

 Evaluated under this objective standard, plaintiff’s motion and supporting affidavit fail to

demonstrate personal bias or lack of impartiality. Plaintiff asserts that it was unfair to deny his

requests for counsel and his request to stay this action and hold it in abeyance until he is released

from prison. However, as stated, judicial rulings ordinarily are not a basis for finding bias, and

nothing about these rulings suggests that the undersigned harbors any favoritism or antagonism

Case 2:06-cv-01162-LKK -EFB Document 40 Filed 11/05/07 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

3

that interferes with the ability to remain impartial. Plaintiff also asserts that the process is unfair

because he represents himself and has no legal education, but defendant has “top legal advisors.” 

The fact that plaintiff proceeds without counsel and defendant is represented is wholly

independent of the undersigned’s role and rulings in this case. Finally, plaintiff asserts that “the

court works for the Defendant,” and claims that the fact that defendant is a state employee

essentially immunizes him from any repercussions for misconduct. Plaintiff’s mere allegations

do not in any way suggest that defendant has influenced the undersigned with respect to this or

any other matter. Thus, a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would not concluded

that the undersigned’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. For these reasons, plaintiff’s

motion to disqualify must be denied. 

II. Plaintiff’s Failure to Prosecute

As noted above, on August 15, 2007, the court found that plaintiff had not filed an

opposition or statement of no opposition to defendant Hawley’s July 28, 2007, motion for

summary judgment. The court found that plaintiff had been advised of the requirements for

opposing summary judgment and warned that this action could be dismissed for plaintiff’s

failure to comply with the Local Rules of Practice or this court’s orders, and gave plaintiff an

additional 20 days to file an opposition or a statement of no opposition. The 20 days have

passed, and although plaintiff has filed a groundless motion to disqualify, he has not responded

to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, this action must be dismissed

without prejudice.

Accordingly, it hereby is ORDERED that plaintiff’s August 21, 2007, “Motion of

Objections to Court Concerning Bias” is denied.

It further is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice for

plaintiff’s failure to follow this court’s orders and Local Rules of Practice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days

Case 2:06-cv-01162-LKK -EFB Document 40 Filed 11/05/07 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

4

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 5, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01162-LKK -EFB Document 40 Filed 11/05/07 Page 4 of 4