Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00367/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00367-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARL L. JIMENA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

UBS AG (ZURICH SWITZERLAND )

HEADQUARTERS), et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

NO. 1: 07-CV-0367-OWW-SKO

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF DISTRICT

COURT JUDGE OLIVER W.

WANGER’S ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

DISQUALIFY

(Document #237)

On June 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify District Court Judge Oliver W.

Wanger. On June 17, 2010, the undersigned denied the motion without prejudice to Plaintiff renoticing the motion before Judge Wanger. On July 1, 2010, Judge Wanger denied Plaintiff’s

motion to disqualify. On July 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for the undersigned to

reconsider Judge Wanger’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify. Plaintiff’s motion is

made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)(b).

Title 28 U.S.C. § 144 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

Case 1:07-cv-00367-OWW -SKO Document 243 Filed 08/04/10 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

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

case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is

made in good faith.

28 U.S.C. § 144. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455 a judge must be recused “in any proceeding in which

his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555

(1994) (citation omitted). The substantive standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 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. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453

(9 Cir. 1997). th

Generally, the alleged bias must stem from an “extrajudicial source.” Liteky v. United

States, 510 U.S. 540, 544-56 (1994). In Liteky v. United States, the Supreme Court recognized

that: 

The fact that an opinion held by a judge derives from a source outside judicial

proceedings is not a necessary condition for “bias or prejudice” recusal, since

predispositions developed during the course of a trial will sometimes (albeit

rarely) suffice.

Liteky, 510 U.S. 540, 554. However, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis

for a bias or partiality motion. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; Ortiz v. Stewart, 149 F.3d 923, 940 (9th

Cir. 1998). Judicial bias or prejudice formed during current or prior proceedings is sufficient for

recusal only when the judge's actions “display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would

make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038,

1044 (9 Cir. 2008). However, “expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even

th

anger” are not grounds for establishing bias or impartiality, nor are a judge's efforts at courtroom

administration. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555-56; Pesnell, 543 F.3d at 1044. Judicial rulings may

support a motion for recusal only “in the rarest of circumstances.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555;

Chischilly, 30 F.3d at 1149.

Plaintiff has filed a certificate that asserts his motion to disqualify Judge Wanger is made

in good faith. However, Plaintiff has failed to set forth a sufficient showing in his affidavit that

2

Case 1:07-cv-00367-OWW -SKO Document 243 Filed 08/04/10 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

Judge Wanger has a personal bias or prejudice against him. Plaintiff’s position is that Judge

Wanger has a “mindset” against him. Plaintiff points to a quote in one of Judge Wanger’s

orders in which Judge Wanger stated that even if Plaintiff were technically entitled to entry of

default against one Defendant, the court would exercise the court’s discretion and deny any

motion for default judgment. See Doc. #225. Plaintiff also points to another order in which

Judge Wanger states that Plaintiff “appears to contend that he served Mr. Standish by sending an

e-mail to the Yahoo email address used by the impersonators who defrauded plaintiff by

pretending to be Mr. Standish.” Judge Wanger continues by finding that California does not

allow for service by e-mail.

In this case, Plaintiff moves for recusal based on statements Judge Wanger has made in

written orders in this action. As such, they are not a proper reason for recusal without a showing

of “deep-seated and unequivocal antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible.” 

Plaintiff has failed to show such deep-seated antagonism. The orders cited to by Plaintiff

contain Judge Wanger’s attempts to educate a pro se plaintiff on appropriate motions to file and

proper service methods. Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that Judge Wanger has a

personal bias or prejudice against him. Thus, Plaintiff’s motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144

and 28 U.S.C. § 455 were correctly denied.

Accordingly, the undersigned ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of

Judge Wanger’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify Judge Wanger is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 3, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

3

Case 1:07-cv-00367-OWW -SKO Document 243 Filed 08/04/10 Page 3 of 3