Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00011/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00011-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eric BOUDETTE,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Dora SCHRIRO, et al.,

Respondents. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-0011-PHX-SMM (VAM)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND 

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Eric Boudette's Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus. [Doc. No. 1] On October 12, 2005, Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis filed a Report

and Recommendation, advising this Court that Petitioner's Petition should be denied and

dismissed with prejudice. [Doc. No. 22] Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to

Repl to Attorney General's Answer to First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and

Deadline to Respond on October 19, 2005. [Doc. No. 23] This Court granted that Motion in part

and denied the Motion in part on October 21, 2005, and allowed Petitioner an additional 45

days to file his Objections to the Report and Recommendations. [Doc. No. 24] Petitioner filed

another Motion for Extension of Time on December 5, 2005 [Doc. No. 25], and the Court

granted him 7 additional days to file his Objections. [Doc. No. 26] Petitioner filed Objections

on December 12, 2005. [Doc. No. 28] With his Objections, Petitioner also filed a Motion to

Recuse Magistrate Judge [Doc. No. 29] and a Motion for Court Appointed Counsel [Doc. No.

30]. Respondent filed an Opposition to the Objections and both Motions on December 16,

Case 2:05-cv-00011-SMM Document 35 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

2005. [Doc. No. 31] Petitioner replied to the Opposition on January 5, 2006 [Doc. No. 34], after

having been granted an extension of time to do so by this Court [Doc. No. 33].

After considering Judge Mathis's Report and Recommendation and the arguments raised

in Petitioner's Objections thereto, as well as the Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge and the

Motion for Court Appointed Counsel and the subsequent filings by both Petitioner and

Respondent, the Court now issues the following rulings. 

I. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

A. Standard of Review

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v.

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). The Court must review the legal analysis in the

Report and Recommendation de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review

the factual analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo for those facts to which

Objections are filed and for clear error for those facts to which no Objections are filed. See id.;

see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to file objections relieves

the district court of conducting de novo review of the magistrate’s factual findings).

B. Discussion

Having reviewed the legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge and the objections having been made by Petitioner thereto, the Court hereby

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, with the following

addition.

In his Objections and Reply, Petitioner put forth a claim of "actual innocence." That is,

Petitioner argues that even if the statute of limitations has passed, he is "actually innocent" and

his constitutional challenges should go forward. In Schlup v. Delo, the United States Supreme

Court held that a petitioner "must show that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror

would have found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" to prevail on a claim of "actual

innocence." 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995). Petitioner in this case has failed to meet that burden and

Case 2:05-cv-00011-SMM Document 35 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

therefore the Court need not reach a conclusion on whether "actual innocence" is an exception

to the statute of limitations for petitions for writs of habeas corpus. 

II. MOTION TO RECUSE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Under both 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, the standard for disqualification 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 (9th Cir.

1997). Recusal is required "only if bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source and not

from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding." Pau v. Yosemite Park and

Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Toth v. TransWorld Airlines, 862 F.2d

1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Petitioner moves to recuse United States Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis from this

case. In support of his Motion, Petitioner contends that Judge Mathis: did not extend filing

deadlines for him, thereby "engaging in a pattern of preferential treatment . . . that favors the

State Attorney General's office" (Mot. to Recuse, ¶ 1); "has a widespread reputation in the

prison for consistently overreaching in her orders" in habeas corpus cases (Id. at ¶ 8) and has

an "internal bias" against Petitioner and prisoners (See id. at 6-7); issues rulings that are

prejudicial to prisoners (Id. at ¶ 9); and denied Petitioner's Motion to Leave to File a Second

Amended Petition (Id. at ¶ 14). Also, Petitioner argues that habeas corpus law is skewed in

favor of the state (Id. at ¶¶ 2, 5) and that prisoners are not provided sufficient legal materials.

(Id. at ¶¶ 3, 4.)

The Court finds that none of Petitioner's numerous assertions meet the standard for

requiring recusal of a judge. The majority of Petitioner's contentions take issue with rulings

issued by Judge Mathis; however, case law usually requires an extrajudicial source of bias in

order to mandate recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-56 (1994); see also

Pau, 928 F.2d at 885. Unless a judge's opinions "display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism

that would make fair judgment impossible," they will not constitute a valid basis for a recusal

motion. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 554-56. Additionally, Petitioner's allegation of "internal bias" is

not supported by reference to any specific facts. Such an allegation is insufficient to support

Case 2:05-cv-00011-SMM Document 35 Filed 01/13/06 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

a motion for recusal. See, e.g., United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980). The

Court further notes that Petitioner's arguments that federal habeas corpus law is biased against

prisoners and that prisoners lack adequate legal materials are not grounds for recusal of a judge

because they do not involve a judge's partiality. Here, the Court finds that Petitioner has not

demonstrated an extrajudicial source for any alleged bias, nor has Petitioner shown a deepseated favoritism or antagonism on the part of Judge Mathis as to make fair judgment

impossible. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner's Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge

Mathis must therefore be denied.

III. MOTION FOR COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL

Petitioner also moves this Court to appoint Petitioner a public defender for his habeas

proceedings. This Motion will be denied as moot, because the Court, by adopting Judge

Mathis's Report and Recommendation, denies Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

and therefore dismisses this matter.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

Judge Virginia A. Mathis [Doc. No. 22] with the above addition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

[Doc. No. 1] is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Recuse Magistrate Judge

[Doc. No. 29] and Motion for Court Appointed Counsel [Doc. No. 30] are DENIED.

DATED this 11th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00011-SMM Document 35 Filed 01/13/06 Page 4 of 4