Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01773/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01773-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Tami E. Henry, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Universal Technical Institute, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01773-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (doc. 119),

defendant's response (doc. 125), defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 122),

defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 129), plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss (doc.

131), defendant's reply (doc. 134), plaintiff's motion for recusal (doc. 130), and defendant's

response (doc. 133). Plaintiff has failed to file both a reply in support of his motion for

summary judgment and a response to defendant's motion for summary judgment. The time

for doing so has expired.

We first address the motion for recusal (doc. 130). Relying on 28 U.S.C. § 455(a),

plaintiff argues that the undersigned should disqualify himself because his comments and

orders "demonstrate bias and prejudice towards the Plaintiff." We disagree. Mere

conclusory allegations do not provide a basis for recusal. U.S. v. $292,888.04 in U.S.

Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995). The relevant inquiry under § 455(a) is whether

Case 2:11-cv-01773-FJM Document 135 Filed 01/09/13 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

the alleged comments "display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair

judgment impossible." Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157

(1994). This court has strongly urged plaintiff to seek legal advice from an attorney on

several occasions. However, "judge's ordinary efforts at courtroom administration" do not

establish bias or partiality. Id. at 556, 114 S.Ct. at 1157. Plaintiff's argument that the court's

admonishments create the appearance of bias is untenable. The motion for recusal is denied

(doc. 130).

In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that Universal Technical Institute ("UTI")

instructors and administrators discriminated against him on the basis of race and national

origin. On March 9, 2012, we dismissed all of plaintiffs claims except plaintiff's Title VI

claim alleging that UTI engaged in race discrimination by not allowing plaintiff to take or

retake the induction systems test given in one of his classes (doc. 68). A party seeking

summary judgment bears the burden of informing this court of the basis for its motion, and

identifying those portions of “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate the

absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106

S. Ct. 2548, 2553 (1986). Plaintiff's conclusory allegation that the case is "open and shut"

is insufficient, and his reference to the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights report

does not demonstrate that UTI discriminated against him. Moreover, plaintiff's motion for

summary judgment does not comply with LRCiv 56.1. He failed to submit a separate

statement of facts and to include citations to specific admissible parts of the record. This

procedural non-compliance provides an independent ground for denial of plaintiff's motion

for summary judgment. See LRCiv 56.1(a) (“A failure to submit a separate statement of

facts . . . may constitute grounds for the denial of the motion.”).

In its motion for summary judgment, defendant claims that plaintiff cannot succeed

on his Title VI claim because he hasfailed to demonstrate that he wastreated differently than

any similarly situated students. A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must file

Case 2:11-cv-01773-FJM Document 135 Filed 01/09/13 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

a separate controverting statement of facts to show that a genuine issue of material fact

exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); LRCiv 56.1(b). Because plaintiff failed to do so, we may grant

defendant's motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3). Moreover, under

LRCiv 7.2(i), "if the opposing party does not serve and file the required answering

memoranda . . . , such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or granting of

the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily." Plaintiff did not respond

to the motion for summary judgment, and the time for filing has long since passed. 

Accordingly, we grant defendant's motion for summary judgment. 

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for recusal (doc. 130) and

plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (doc. 119). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING defendant's motion for summary

judgment (doc. 122) and DENYING defendant's motion to dismiss as moot (doc. 129). 

The clerk shall enter final judgment.

DATED this 9th day of January, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-01773-FJM Document 135 Filed 01/09/13 Page 3 of 3