Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00471/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-00471-42/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN W. BONILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT AYERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 08-cv-00471-YGR (HSG)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S 

MOTION FOR RECUSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 291

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-14, Petitioner Steven W. Bonilla’s pro se “Challenge for 

Cause - Incompetency” has been referred to this Court. Dkt. Nos. 291-93. The Court construes 

Petitioner’s “Challenge for Cause” as a motion for recusal and finds it suitable for determination 

without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the 

motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

On May 12, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant motion, asserting that Judge Gonzalez 

Rogers—to whom the underlying case is assigned—did not properly apply certain provisions of 

the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. Petitioner’s grievance arises from a March 26, 

2015 court order in which Judge Gonzalez Rogers “ruled that the motions filed by the Petitioner 

[under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act] must be filed by his counsel.” Dkt. No. 291 at 3. 

Specifically, Petitioner contends that Judge Gonzalez Rogers “does not have the authority to 

rewrite the statute to include the additional requirement that a crime victim must be represented by 

counsel when the statute clearly and unambiguously states that the Petitioner/crime victim has the 

right to file the motion.” Id.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-14, the Clerk assigned the motion to the undersigned for 

adjudication. 

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 297 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

28 U.S.C. § 455(a), states that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United 

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

questioned.” In analyzing a § 455(a) disqualification motion, the test is an objective one: 

“whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 

428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Disqualification is also authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 144, which provides that if “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 . . . .” Under both statutes, the salient question 

is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 

2008). 

Furthermore, motions for recusal are “limited by the ‘extrajudicial source’ factor which 

generally requires as the basis for recusal something other than rulings, opinions formed or 

statements made by the judge during the course of trial.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 

913-14 (9th Cir. 2008). As a result, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis 

for a bias or partiality motion . . . unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that 

would make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). 

Disqualification on the basis of an allegedly erroneous judicial ruling should not be ordered except 

in the “rarest of circumstances.” Holland, 519 F.3d at 914.

The decision on a motion to disqualify a judge is a matter of the district court’s discretion. 

Pesnell, 543 F.3d at 1043.

B. Petitioner Has Not Identified Any Evidence That Supports Disqualification

Petitioner contends only that Judge Gonzalez Rogers is “incompetent to follow the law,” 

not that she has any personal bias or prejudice against him. And his only evidence of Judge 

Gonzalez Rogers’s alleged incompetency is the denial of Petitioner’s pro se motion pursuant to 

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 297 Filed 06/02/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. Such evidence is clearly insufficient to warrant recusal, as it is 

based on “judicial rulings alone.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate 

any “deep seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. The 

Court therefore finds that Petitioner’s “Challenge for Cause” is frivolous and must be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s “Challenge for Cause - Incompetency,” construed 

as a motion for recusal, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

6/2/2015

Case 4:08-cv-00471-YGR Document 297 Filed 06/02/15 Page 3 of 3