Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01336/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01336-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patrick Neal Bradberry, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-1336-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Patrick Neal Bradberry’s (“Plaintiff”) “Objection and

Appeal of the Magistrate Judges Arbitrary Erroneous Ruling in [Docket # 68] Regarding

[Docket # 67] Denying Without Remedy that Defendants who have Unlawfully Avoid

Service be Served by the U.S. Marshals Office and that [Docket # 67] be Reviewed Anew,”

which the Court interprets as an Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s previous Order concerning

service on Defendants (Doc. # 69). Also pending before the Court, is “Plaintiff’s Request

to Judge James A. Teilborg to Take Judicial Notice and Request for Change of Judge,” which

the Court interprets as a Motion for Recusal (Doc. # 93). The Court will deny Plaintiff’s

Motions.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 5, 2005, Plaintiff filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a pro

se litigant. After Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed by this Court under Rule 41(b), the Ninth

Circuit reversed and remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings (Doc. # 31).

Plaintiff then attempted to serve Dora B. Schriro et al. (“Defendants”), but the U.S. Marshal

was unable to locate the Defendants. As a result, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting that this

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 111 Filed 09/15/08 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

- 2 -

Court: (1) hold the unserved Defendants in contempt and order appropriate sanctions for

avoiding service; (2) order the U.S. Marshal’s Office to personally serve the Defendants; (3)

order the ADOC to release the last known addresses of the Defendants that are no longer

with the ADOC; and (4) hold the Defendants responsible for the time delays that have

occurred and provide Plaintiff with extra time to serve Defendants. (Pl.’s Appeal of the

Magistrate Judge’s Order 2.) The Magistrate Judge issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s

requests (Doc. # 68). In response, Plaintiff filed an Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order

(Doc. # 69). Thereafter, Defendant Dora B. Schriro was successfully served (Doc. # 87).

After filing his appeal, Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Recusal (Doc. # 93).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order

When a party objects to the ruling of a Magistrate Judge in a non-dispositive matter,

the district judge must consider the party’s “objections and modify or set aside any part of

the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” FED.CIV.R. 72(a). Here, Plaintiff

filed a Motion with this Court seeking to overturn the Magistrate Judge’s Order as “arbitrary

and legally unreasonable.” (Pl.’s Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order 1.) However, the

Magistrate Judge has since issued an additional Order (Doc. # 105), requiring Defendant

Dora B. Schriro to submit the last known addresses of each Defendant to the Court, and the

Clerk of the Court to forward those addresses and completed service packets to the Marshal

for personal service on each Defendant. In addition, the Order extended the deadline for

service to October 10, 2008. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Appeal of the

Magistrate Judge’s Order as Moot in regards to Plaintiff’s requests to order Defendants’ last

known addresses to be released, to order the Marshal to personally serve those Defendants,

and to order additional time for Plaintiff to serve Defendants.

Having determined that three of Plaintiff’s above requests are denied as moot, the

Court now addresses Plaintiff’s remaining request to hold Defendants in contempt and order

sanctions for avoiding service. Plaintiff argues that Defendants have “willfully and

maliciously sought to avoid lawful service by returning all service packets as ‘Return to

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 111 Filed 09/15/08 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

- 3 -

Sender.’” (Pl.’s Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order 2.) Plaintiff attached receipts from

the Marshal’s Office to his original Motion, which indicate the Defendants could not be

located. Plaintiff also attached a prison phone list, inmate bulletin, and an article about

Defendant Dora B. Schriro, which he argues show that the Defendants were located at the

addresses he gave to the Marshal’s Office. None of these exhibits, however, show that the

Defendants avoided service. Rather, they only show that Defendants could not be located.

Therefore, the Court will not modify or set aside the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying

Plaintiff’s request to hold Defendants in contempt and order sanctions.

B. Recusal

Two statutes govern recusal of district judges: 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section

144 applies when a party to a proceeding believes that the district judge “has a personal bias

or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 144.

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

affidavit.” United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted).

Specifically, the statute provides: 

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. When a party files a timely and legally sufficient affidavit pursuant to

section 144, the district judge “shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be

assigned to hear such proceeding.” Id.; Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867. However, “if the motion and

affidavit required by section 144 [are] not presented to the judge, no relief under section 144

is available.” Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868.

Section 455 sets forth two recusal provisions. The first provision, subsection (a),

provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself

[or herself] in any proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be

questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The second provision, subsection (b), provides that any

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 111 Filed 09/15/08 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 -

justice, judge, or magistrate “shall also disqualify himself [or herself] in the following

circumstances: (1) Where he [or she] has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or

personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding[.]” 28 U.S.C. §

455(b)(1).

Unlike section 144, section 455 “sets forth no procedural requirements. That section

is directed to the judge, rather than the parties, and is self-enforcing on the part of the judge.

Moreover, section 455 includes no provision for referral of the question of recusal to another

judge; if the judge sitting on a case is aware of grounds for recusal under section 455, that

judge has a duty to recuse him or herself.” Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867-68 (citations omitted).

Finally, “section 455 modifies section 144 in requiring the judge to go beyond [a] section 144

affidavit and consider the merits of the [recusal] motion pursuant to section 455[].” Id. at

868. 

Here, Plaintiff failed to provide an affidavit with his Motion as required by § 144. In

addition, Plaintiff’s arguments for disqualification are based solely on the Court’s rulings in

his case. Plaintiff fails to provide any other support for his contention that this Court is

biased against him. Finally, Plaintiff is assured that the Court is aware of its obligation to

be impartial in this case. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal.

III. CONCLUSION

 Based upon the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. #69)

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal (Doc. #93) is

DENIED. 

DATED this 15th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-01336-JAT Document 111 Filed 09/15/08 Page 4 of 4