Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00020/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00020-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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 

KAB 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Samuel Louis Fuller, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Kari Jill Granville, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 14-00020-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Samuel Louis Fuller, who is currently confined in Maricopa County 

Fourth Avenue Jail, brought this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 

41.) Pending before the Court is “Plaintiff’s § 144 Bia[s] or prejudice of 

judge/Affidavit,” (Doc. 163) in which Plaintiff seeks recusal of the undersigned judge. 

 Plaintiff seeks recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144, which provides: 

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. 

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief 

that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than 

ten days before the beginning of the term at which the 

proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for 

failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one 

such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 164 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

27 

28 

certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good 

faith. 

28 U.S.C. § 144.

To be entitled to relief under §144, a party must submit a proper motion and 

affidavit. United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980). If a proper motion 

and affidavit are submitted, the judge still must determine the legal sufficiency of the 

affidavit filed pursuant to § 144. If that affidavit is sufficient on its face, the motion must 

be referred to another judge for a determination of its merits under § 144. Id. “An 

affidavit filed pursuant to that section is not legally sufficient unless it specifically alleges 

facts that fairly support the contention that the judge exhibits bias or prejudice directed 

toward a party that stems from an extrajudicial source.” Id. 

 “The substantive standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455 

is the same: Whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude 

that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. 

Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citation omitted). “Ordinarily, 

the alleged bias must stem from an ‘extrajudicial source,’” and judicial rulings by 

themselves do not constitute a valid basis for recusal. Id. at 1454. “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. (internal citation omitted.) 

 Plaintiff seeks recusal of the undersigned because (1) the undersigned denied 

Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief, (2) the undersigned has allowed Defendant to 

harass Plaintiff because the Court has not commented on Defendant’s references to 

Plaintiff’s mental state in response to motions and is biased against Plaintiff on the basis 

of his disabilities, and (3) the Court improperly warned Plaintiff in its January 26, 2016 

Order (Doc. 157) that “harassing, coercive, argumentative, threatening or similar 

statements to opposing counsel will not be permitted.” 

 Plaintiff’s motion and “affidavit” do not comply with §144 and Plaintiff is not 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 164 Filed 02/02/16 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

entitled to relief under § 144. First, although the title of Plaintiff’s motion has the word 

“affidavit” in it, Plaintiff has not submitted a proper affidavit in compliance with 28 

U.S.C. § 1746 to support his motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (requiring unsworn 

declaration to be under penalty of perjury). Moreover, to be entitled to referral of his 

motion to another judge, Plaintiff must specifically allege facts that fairly support the 

contention that the undersigned exhibits bias or prejudice toward Plaintiff that stems from 

an extrajudicial source. Here, Plaintiff’s motion concerns matters arising in this litigation 

and fails to allege personal bias stemming from an extrajudicial source. Accordingly, the 

undersigned declines to refer this matter to another judge. 

 With regard to Plaintiff’s arguments, the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motions for 

injunctive relief are not a proper basis for recusal, despite Plaintiff’s disagreement with 

the Court’s rulings.1

 Although Plaintiff contends that the Court has allowed Defendant to 

harass Plaintiff by making references to his mental state, Plaintiff has presented no 

evidence of harassment to the Court and, although the Court understands that Plaintiff 

contends that he feels harassed, the Court cannot act without evidence. Finally, although 

Plaintiff objects to the Court’s warning that “harassing, coercive, argumentative, 

threatening or similar statements to opposing counsel will not be permitted” because 

Plaintiff finds the statement to be vague and intimidating, the statement does not show 

 

1

 Plaintiff asserts that the Court incorrectly accepted Defendant’s assertion that 

pages 13-15 were missing from one of his motions for injunctive relief and did not credit 

Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s assertion that the 

pages were missing was intended to “coerce the plaintiff into a ‘psycological [sic] state of 

anxiety.’” In its November 10, 2015 Order, the Court did note that three pages of 

Plaintiff’s Motion were missing. (Doc. 151 at 2.) The Court did not, however, rely on 

Defendant’s argument; rather, the Court cited to Plaintiff’s Motion itself, Doc. 120 at 12, 

which showed the last page before the exhibits was 12 of 15. Plaintiff did attach a 

proposed order (Doc. 120-1) to his motion, which appears to be the last three missing 

pages of the motion. Although the Court did not realize that the proposed order was 

intended to be the last three pages of Plaintiff’s motion, the proposed order would not 

have changed the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion and the oversight does not show 

that the undersigned has a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair 

judgment impossible. 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 164 Filed 02/02/16 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

that the undersigned has a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair 

judgment impossible and is not a basis for recusal. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not 

presented any legally cognizable basis to suggest that the Court’s impartiality might 

reasonably be questioned for the purposes of § 144. 

IT IS ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s § 144 Bia[s] or prejudice of judge/Affidavit” 

(Doc. 163) is denied. 

 Dated this 2nd day of February, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-00020-DGC Document 164 Filed 02/02/16 Page 4 of 4