Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00644/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00644-0/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

1

 Plaintiff has filed at least 15 prior lawsuits in this District while he has been a

prisoner and that at least six of Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits qualify as “strikes” under § 1915(g):

Thompson v. Clinton, 94-CV-892-PHX-CAM (BGS) (D. Ariz. Order of dismissal filed

March 14, 1995); Thompson v. Romer, 94-CV-897-PHX-CAM (BGS) (D. Ariz. Order of

dismissal filed March 13, 1995); Thompson v. Known and Unknown Persons, 94-CV-1029-

PHX-CAM (BGS) (D. Ariz. Order of dismissal filed March 13, 1995); Thompson v.

Symington, 95-CV-973-PHX-CAM (BGS) (D. Ariz. Order of dismissal filed July 27, 1995);

Thompson v. Kelly, 95-CV-1048-PHX-CAM (BGS) (D. Ariz. Order of dismissal filed June

SC

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Lee Thompson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

John Doe, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-0644-PHX-DGC (ECV)

ORDER

Plaintiff Richard Lee Thompson, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison

Complex-Tucson, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without

paying the $350.00 filing fee or an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 1.)

Because it appeared that Plaintiff had at least “three strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the

Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the dismissals of his prior lawsuits should not

prevent him from proceeding in forma pauperis without prepayment in full of the filing fee

for this action.1

 (Doc. 3.) 

Case 2:12-cv-00644-DGC--ECV Document 6 Filed 06/18/12 Page 1 of 5
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

16, 1995); and Thompson v. Arizona Superior Court, 95-CV-2211-PHX-CAM (BGS) (D.

Ariz. Order of dismissal filed October 31, 1995).

2

 Plaintiff’s response is only partially legible. 

3

 The Phoenix Finance Office returns partial payments from inmates as unauthorized

unless a court order specifically grants the inmate leave to pay the filing fee incrementally.

The Court has not done so in this case. 

- 2 -

Plaintiff has filed an “Affidavit and Answer” to the Order.2 (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff states

that he authorized payment from his inmate trust account to pay the filing fee and that a

check was sent to the Court for the filing fee, but was returned. The Court has conferred with

the Phoenix Finance Office. The Phoenix Finance Office has no record of receiving a

$350.00 payment from the prison on Plaintiff’s behalf since the filing of this action. Absent

a receipt, which Plaintiff states that he does have, nothing of record supports Plaintiff’s

assertion that full payment was ever proffered, received, or returned.3

Plaintiff in part asserts that he believes the Court is biased against him, apparently

based on the Show Cause Order. Accordingly, the Court considers whether recusal in this

matter is appropriate. 

Section 455(a) of title 28 provides that a United States judge or magistrate judge

“shall disqualify” himself in any proceeding in which his “impartiality might reasonably be

questioned.” Section 455(b)(1) provides that a judge must also disqualify himself where he

“has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed

evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding[.]” Recusal pursuant to § 455(b) is required only

if the bias or prejudice stems from an extra-judicial source, not from conduct or rulings

during the course of the proceedings. See Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d 1034, 1046

(9th Cir. 1987), aff’d, 496 U.S. 543 (1990); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th

Cir. 1986) (judge’s prior adverse rulings are insufficient cause for recusal). “[J]udicial

rulings alone almost never constitute [a] valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky

v. United States, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994). Adverse rulings should be appealed; they do

not form the basis for a recusal motion. Further, where the judge forms opinions in the

Case 2:12-cv-00644-DGC--ECV Document 6 Filed 06/18/12 Page 2 of 5
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

4

 Under § 144, “[w]henever 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 . . . against him . . . , such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall

be assigned to hear such proceeding.” Before another judge is to be assigned to hear the proceeding,

however, the “judge against whom [the] affidavit of bias is filed” may determine its legal

sufficiency. United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir.1978). “Only after the legal

sufficiency of the affidavit is determined does it become the duty of the judge to ‘proceed no further’

- 3 -

courtroom, either in the current proceeding or in a prior proceeding, those opinions “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.

Plaintiff fails to allege or show any basis for recusal under § 455. Rather, he makes

conclusory assertions of partiality. That is not a basis upon which the Court’s impartiality

might reasonably be questioned for purposes of § 455(a). Moreover, the Court does not have

a personal bias or prejudice concerning Plaintiff or other potential parties to this action or

personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning this proceeding. The Court

therefore finds that recusal is not warranted pursuant to § 455.

Plaintiff may also be seeking disqualification of the Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and

351. Section 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 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 (emphasis added). 

In this case, Plaintiff has filed an affidavit, but it is not a “timely and sufficient

affidavit.” He merely makes conclusory assertions of partiality, apparently based solely on

the issuance of the show cause order. That is not a basis supporting disqualification pursuant

to § 144.4

Case 2:12-cv-00644-DGC--ECV Document 6 Filed 06/18/12 Page 3 of 5
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 case.” Id. at 738; see Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir.1988)

(A district judge need only assign the motion to another judge for a hearing “after the legal

sufficiency of the affidavit is determined[.]”). For reasons stated above, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff’s conclusory affidavit is not legally sufficient. 

5

 No amended complaint has been filed in this case. 

- 4 -

Finally, section 351(a) provides that: 

Filing of complaint by any person.– Any person alleging that a judge

has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious

administration of the business of the courts, or alleging that such judge is

unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical

disability, may file with the clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit a

written complaint containing a brief statement of the facts constituting such

conduct.

28 U.S.C. § 351(a). Plaintiff’s complaint was not filed with the clerk of the court of appeals

for the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff may be seeking relief pursuant

to § 351(a), he failed to properly file his complaint. 

Plaintiff has not alleged facts or shown that the Court has a personal bias or prejudice

concerning Plaintiff or other parties to this action or personal knowledge of disputed

evidentiary facts concerning this proceeding. Plaintiff also has not filed a timely and

sufficient affidavit that supports that this Court has a personal bias or prejudice against him

or in favor of other parties to this case. Finally, Plaintiff’s affidavit is not properly before

this Court to the extent that he seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 351(a). The Court

therefore finds that neither recusal, nor disqualification are warranted. 

In the balance of Plaintiff’s response, he lists the following: a show cause order

requires his appearance in court and he seeks a court hearing to show that he lacks access to

a law library; he confirms that he has not sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but

purports that someone else has; he asserts that he may find it necessary to file a second

amended complaint5

; he was raped, beaten, and sodomized by civil and criminal defendants;

he contacted a law firm regarding representation; he filed timely grievances; he would like

an order directed to defendants; assertions concerning past acts; he seeks to strike past acts

from records as immaterial and prejudicial; he strenuously moves to strike the Court’s order

to show cause where no objection has been made by the defense and to construe this action

Case 2:12-cv-00644-DGC--ECV Document 6 Filed 06/18/12 Page 4 of 5
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

6

 Plaintiff was convicted by a jury in Yavapai County Superior Court of aggravated

assault, unlawful flight, and theft and a prior out-of-state conviction was used to enhance his

sentence. See State v. Thompson, 924 F.2d 1048, 1049 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).

- 5 -

in his favor; a paralegal has stated that she cannot support his case; a judge has declared him

the plaintiff, and he was tried and found not guilty and can never be prosecuted again under

the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.6

None of these assertions establish cause why this action should not be dismissed based

on three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that he was

raped, beaten, and sodomized, he wholly fails to allege any supporting facts, including when,

where, and by whom. Moreover, he does not allege an imminent threat of serious physical

injury in his response or his Complaint. Plaintiff having failed to show cause why this action

should not be dismissed pursuant to § 1915(g), the Complaint and this action will be

dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff commencing a new case accompanied by the $350.00

filing fee.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Complaint (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g) without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a complaint in a new case accompanied by the

full $350.00 filing fee. 

(2) The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. 

(3) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this

decision would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 15th day of June, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00644-DGC--ECV Document 6 Filed 06/18/12 Page 5 of 5