Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02705/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02705-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIGUEL DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. FOX, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2705 JAM CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint filed under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion to recuse the undersigned. (ECF No. 35.) 

The federal statute governing recusal 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; see also 28 U.S.C. § 455.

Case 2:14-cv-02705-JAM-CKD Document 36 Filed 03/14/16 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

2

The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 is “‘whether a reasonable person with 

knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned.’” Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 607, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. 

Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983)). To provide adequate grounds for recusal, the 

prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source as a judge’s previous adverse ruling alone is 

not sufficient for recusal. See id.

Section 144 expressly conditions relief upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient 

affidavit. A judge who finds the affidavit legally sufficient must proceed no further under section 

144 and must assign a different judge to hear the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 144. However, where 

the affidavit is not legally sufficient, the judge at whom the motion is directed can determine the 

matter. See United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Toth v. Trans 

World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that only after determining the 

legal sufficiency of a § 144 affidavit is a judge obligated to reassign decision on merits to another 

judge)). If the affidavit is legally insufficient, then recusal can be denied. See United States v. 

$292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995).

Plaintiff’s motion for recusal is insufficient under section 144 because it fails to allege 

facts that would support the contention that the undersigned exhibits bias or prejudice directed 

towards him from an extrajudicial source. See U.S. v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980) 

(“An affidavit filed pursuant to [section 144] is not legally sufficient unless it specifically alleges 

facts that fairly support the contention that the judge exhibits bias or prejudice directed toward a 

party that stems from an extrajudicial source.”). Plaintiff’s motion for recusal alleges bias and 

prejudice arising out of judicial actions of the undersigned. These are not proper grounds to 

disqualify a judge for bias and prejudice. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, 

“judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” 

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Instead, the judicial rulings are a basis for 

appeal, not recusal. See id. (“In and of themselves ... [judicial rulings] cannot possibly show 

reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the 

degree of favoritism or antagonism required ... when no extrajudicial source is involved. Almost 

Case 2:14-cv-02705-JAM-CKD Document 36 Filed 03/14/16 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

3

invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”); Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 

1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Leslie’s allegations stem entirely from the district judge’s adverse 

rulings. That is not an adequate basis for recusal.”) (citations omitted). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for recusal (ECF No. 35) 

is denied.

Dated: March 14, 2016

2 / diaz2705.recuse

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02705-JAM-CKD Document 36 Filed 03/14/16 Page 3 of 3