Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05263/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05263-5/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

RODERICK WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD EARLY, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5263 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DECISION

ON CASE (Doc. 66.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CHANGE

VENUE (Doc. 67.)

 Roderick Washington (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion for Decision by Court.” 

Plaintiff submitted a Motion to Change Venue on November 29, 2006. 

A. MOTION FOR DECISION

Plaintiff states that pursuant to the local rules, this Court must render a decision within

120 days after the matter is submitted for decision. Plaintiff cites to Local Rule 83-9-1 in support

of his Motion. 

As a preliminary matter, the rule cited by Plaintiff does not exist in the Local Rules of

this Court. Further, even were there such a rule, the filing of a civil rights complaint is not a

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 68 Filed 12/18/06 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 This case was reassigned from Judge Coyle to Judge Wanger on June 2, 2006, prior to the filing of the 1

instant motion alleging that Judge Coyle and the undersigned are biased. 

2

“motion” requiring decision within 120 days. The decision Plaintiff seeks is a decision on the

merits of his case. Such a decision, should the case proceed that far, is a decision for a trier of

fact, i.e., a jury. In this case, however, the Court has yet to screen the case. Plaintiff is fully

aware of the Court’s responsibility to screen cases to determine whether the Complaint states a

cognizable claim for relief as he has Plaintiff has filed several similar actions in this Court. 

Plaintiff was informed in the Court’s Order vacating Findings and Recommendations that it

would proceed with the case in due course. The Court has pending before it several hundreds of

similar cases many of which are also in need of a preliminary screening. The Court screens these

cases in the order. 

Here, Plaintiff only filed his Second Amended Complaint in May of 2006. The Court has

several cases that have been awaiting screening that predate the submission of Plaintiff’s second

amended complaint and thus, it will screen the second amended complaint in order. Plaintiff can

rest assured that the Court will get to his case as soon as it can given the enormity of its present

case load. Plaintiff is further reminded that the filing of these types of Motions only detracts the

Court’s attention from moving forward with all of its cases in order to resolve such motions. 

Accordingly, the Motion for Decision is DENIED.

B. MOTION TO FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

Plaintiff moves this Court for an Order transferring this case because he believes that the

undersigned and District Court Judge Coyle are biased against him. Plaintiff alleges that this 1

Court has denied him access to the Court for a period of 11 years and in all of his Section 1983

cases. Plaintiff requests that venue be changed to a different judge in the same division of the

Eastern District of California. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-120(b), civil actions arising in Fresno County shall be

commenced in the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California. Pursuant to Local Rule

3-120(d), when the court finds that an action has not been commenced in the proper court, it may

transfer the action to the proper court. 

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 68 Filed 12/18/06 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

3

In this case, Plaintiff does not present facts demonstrating that the action was not

commenced in the proper court. Rather, Plaintiff’s allegation is more akin to a request for

recusal on the basis of bias. The Court notes that such a motion was filed by Plaintiff in this

Court on December 14, 2004, and it was denied on December 20, 2004. (Docs. 38, 41.) 

A judge must disqualify him or herself where there is bias or prejudice for or against a

party. Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 830 F.2d 1513, 1523-24 (9th Cir. 1987). The bias must arise

from an extra-judicial source and cannot be based solely on information gained in the course of

the proceedings. Id. at 1524; In re Corey, 892 F.2d 829, 839 (9th Cir. 1989). A judge’s rulings

while presiding over a case do not constitute extra-judicial conduct. Nilsson, et al., v. Louisiana

Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538, 1548 (9th Cir. 1988).

In this case, as in the prior Motion for recusal, Plaintiff points to no facts from an extrajudicial source giving rise to any bias. Plaintiff rests his basis for recusal on actions taken by the

undersigned during the course of these proceedings. Accordingly, the Motion to change venue to

another judge is DENIED. 

C. ORDER

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Decision is DENIED; and 

2. The Motion for Change of Venue is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 15, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05263-JLT-HBK Document 68 Filed 12/18/06 Page 3 of 3