Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01547/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01547-9/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

KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Michael Lenoir Smith, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arnold Schwarzeneggar, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1-07-1547-SRB

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s July 16, 2012 “Motion and Request to Recuse

Susan R. Bolton” (Doc. 50). Plaintiff seeks recusal of the undersigned judge and contends

that recusal is appropriate because previous rulings unfavorable to Plaintiff demonstrate bias

and prejudice against Plaintiff’s case.

A motion to recuse a judge, whether it is based on 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), 28 U.S.C. §

455(b)(1) or 28 U.S.C. §144, must demonstrate that any alleged bias or impartiality stems

from extrajudicial conduct, i.e., a litigant may not seek recusal based on a prior adverse

ruling in the case. See Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 830 F.2d 1513 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing In

re Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1984)) (28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and

(b)(1)); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986) (same); United States

v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966) (28 U.S.C. § 144). Plaintiff has not

demonstrated or even suggested any extrajudicial bias. Accordingly, the Motion and Request

to Recuse will be denied.

Case 1:07-cv-01547-SRB Document 51 Filed 07/18/12 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s July 16, 2012 “Motion and Request to Recuse

Susan R. Bolton” (Doc. 50) is denied.

DATED this 18th day of July, 2012.

Case 1:07-cv-01547-SRB Document 51 Filed 07/18/12 Page 2 of 2