Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06529-20/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

JEFF HARNDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEY, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:02-CV-06529-LJO-NEW(DLB)-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISTRICT

JUDGE O’NEILL TO RECUSE HIMSELF

(Doc. 127)

 Jeff Harnden (“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 May 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed a

motion for District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill to recuse himself from this action. 

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). 

Plaintiff argues that Judge O’Neill is biased against Plaintiff and therefore should recuse

himself for that reason. Plaintiff alleges that Judge O’Neill is biased because he has deliberately

denied motions filed by prison gang members; because he allegedly denies every motion filed by

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 129 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Plaintiff and allegedly grants every motion filed by defendants; because he denied Plaintiff’s

request for sanctions when Defendants refused to obey court orders; and because he denied

Plaintiff’s motions for discovery and motions to depose witnesses. 

Plaintiff’s motion for recusal must be denied, because a judge’s rulings while presiding

over a case do not constitute extra-judicial conduct. See Nilsson, 854 F.2d at 1538, 1548. All of

Plaintiff’s allegations stem from rulings made by Judge O’Neill while presiding over Plaintiff’s

present case. Therefore, Plaintiff has not presented any grounds for recusal of the Judge, and the

motion must be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the undersigned to

recuse himself from this case is without merit and is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06529-LJO -GSA Document 129 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 2