Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00763/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00763-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:1334 Bankruptcy Appeal

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

In re: BETSEY WARREN NO. CIV. S-08-763 FCD

LEBBOS,

Debtor,

_____________________/

BETSEY WARREN LEBBOS,

Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LINDA SCHUETTE,

Appellee.

_____________________/

In re: BETSEY WARREN NO. CIV. S-08-912 FCD

LEBBOS, 

Debtor,

_____________________/

BETSEY WARREN LEBBOS,

JASON GOLD, THOMAS 

CARTER,

Appellants,

v.

LINDA SCHUETTE,

Appellee.

_____________________/

Case 2:08-cv-00763-FCD Document 29 Filed 07/28/08 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

1 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders these matters submitted on the

briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h). Appellant Thomas Carter

joined in the motion filed in Case No. Civ. S-08-912 FCD. 

(Joinder, filed July 17, 2008.)

2 In her reply, appellant requests that another judge

consider and rule on the instant motions; Section 455, however,

does not require such consideration. United States v. Sibla, 624

F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980) (“Section 455 includes no provision

for referral of the question of recusal to another judge.”)

3 Subsequently, this court dismissed this related appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. (Mem. & Order, filed June 10, 2008 in

Case No. Civ. S-08-440 FCD.)

2

----oo0oo----

The above captioned actions are before the court on

appellant Betsey Warren Lebbos’ (“appellant”) motions to

disqualify the undersigned from hearing these bankruptcy

appeals.1 Appellant contends that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455,

the undersigned must disqualify himself because he is biased

against appellant due to her disability (alleged severe asthma).2

Appellant bases this bald assertion on the simple fact that the

court refused, in a related proceeding, to allow an attorney to

specially appear on appellant’s behalf at a hearing on her

emergency motion to stay certain bankruptcy proceedings. (In re:

Betsey Warren Lebbos, No. Civ. S-08-440 FCD, hearing held April

7, 2008.)3

Section 455(a) provides: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate

judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any

proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned.” The test for disqualification under this section is

an objective one: “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of

all the facts would conclude the judge’s impartiality might

Case 2:08-cv-00763-FCD Document 29 Filed 07/28/08 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

4 Plaintiff’s protestations that she has been unable to

adequately participate in these proceedings are wholly

unpersuasive. Plaintiff fully participated in the April hearing,

and her voluminous filings in the instant appeals and the

numerous other related matters demonstrates her ability to

litigate these matters.

3

reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d

315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983). Here, no such facts exist which could

conceivably give rise to a finding of bias against appellant. 

At the prior hearing in the related appeal, Case No. Civ. S08-440 FCD, the court denied appellant’s request to have her coappellants’ counsel appear on her behalf. Appellant appeared in

that related action, as she does here, pro per. As a result,

counsel for her co-appellants could not appear on her behalf--

“special appearances” by counsel are not permitted by the Local

Rules. E.D. Cal. L.R. 83-182, 83-183. Appellant was, however,

permitted (and able)4 to speak at the hearing on her own behalf,

and after full consideration of the parties’ papers and oral

argument, the court denied appellants’ motions for an emergency

stay. (Mem. & Order, filed April 7, 2008 in Case No. Civ. S-08-

440 FCD.) No reasonable person could construe these facts as

evidencing a bias against appellant.

Indeed, courts have routinely held that “adverse rulings do

not constitute the requisite bias” for purposes of

disqualification under Section 455(a). See e.g. Nelson, 718 F.2d

at 321 (citing cases) (holding judge’s acceptance of an invalid

guilty verdict in the defendant’s first trial did not necessitate

recusal); United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 869 (9th Cir.

1980) (emphasizing that recusal under Section 455(a) is only

required where the bias or prejudice stems from an “extrajudicial

Case 2:08-cv-00763-FCD Document 29 Filed 07/28/08 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

source”). That appellant’s request for appearance by counsel and

motion for stay were ultimately denied provides no grounds for

recusal of the undersigned. Appellant’s motions to disqualify

are HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: July 28, 2008

 FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-00763-FCD Document 29 Filed 07/28/08 Page 4 of 4