Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01790/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01790-15/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Leonardo Joseph Rangel (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is

Plaintiff’s motion for the disqualification of the undersigned, United States Magistrate Judge Barbara 

A. McAuliffe, filed on July 18, 2013. Plaintiff also requests (1) reconsideration of all discovery 

motions by an impartial judge; and (2) and a complete docket filing chronology sheet.1 (ECF No. 73.)

///

///

 

1

Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the docket sheet is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff does not explain why he 

requires a copy of the docket sheet in this action. Plaintiff is advised that the Clerk’s Office generally will provide copies 

at $.50 per page. 

LEONARDO JOSEPH RANGEL,

 Plaintiff,

v.

D. LATRAILLE, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01790-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

REQUESTING DISQUALIFICATION OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE BARBARA A.

McAULIFFE

(ECF No. 73)

Case 1:10-cv-01790-BAM Document 78 Filed 11/25/13 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

II. Motion for Disqualification

Plaintiff brings the instant motion for disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144, which states

as follows:

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. 

The standard for recusal under § 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 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th 

Cir. 1983)). To provide grounds for recusal, prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source 

because a judge’s previous adverse ruling is not sufficient bias. Id.

If the judge to whom a timely motion is directed determines that the accompanying affidavit 

specifically alleges facts stating grounds for recusal under § 144, the motion must be referred to 

another judge for a determination of the merits. United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 

1980). The judge to whom the motion is directed is to determine independently whether all the 

circumstances call for recusal, and such matter rests within the sound discretion of that judge. Sibla, 

624 F.2d at 868. Motions under §144 are directed to the judge before whom the matter is pending, 

which in this instance would be the undersigned. 

Plaintiff’s motion for disqualification is procedurally insufficient because he has not submitted 

the required affidavit or certificate that the motion is brought in good faith. Failure to follow the 

procedural requirements defeats the motion under section 144. See United States v. Azhocar, 581 

F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1978). 

Case 1:10-cv-01790-BAM Document 78 Filed 11/25/13 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

However, even if Plaintiff’s motion were construed to satisfy the affidavit requirement of 

section 144, the motion is substantively insufficient. Plaintiff’s motion fails to specifically allege 

“facts that fairly support the contention that the judge exhibits bias or prejudice directed to a party that 

stems from an extrajudicial source.” Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868. Instead, Plaintiff’s motion alleges bias 

and prejudice arising out of adverse judicial rulings issued by the undersigned. The United States 

Supreme Court has indicated that “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias 

or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994) (“In and of 

themselves ... [judicial rulings] cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source . . . .). 

Rather, judicial rulings are grounds for appeal, not for recusal. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for 

disqualification shall be denied. Additionally, Plaintiff’s related request for reconsideration of all 

discovery motions by an impartial judge shall be denied. 

Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion requesting 

disqualification of the undersigned, filed on July 17, 2013, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01790-BAM Document 78 Filed 11/25/13 Page 3 of 3