Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00008/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00008-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

ERIC RICHARD ELESON,

Petitioner,

v.

JOE A. LIZARRAGA, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00008-LJO-SAB (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER‟S 

MOTION TO RECUSE AND MOTION TO 

STRIKE ORDER (ECF NO. 18)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER‟S 

REQUEST TO CERTIFY CHALLENGE TO 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 6, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion to strike the Court‟s 

June 19, 2015 order denying the motion to expedite ruling and a motion to recuse the 

undersigned from this action. (ECF No. 18).

I.

MOTION TO RECUSE THE UNDERSIGNED

Pending before the Court is Petitioner‟s motion to recuse the undersigned judge. (ECF 

No. 18). A judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if he has a personal bias or prejudice against a party, 28 

U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). The decision regarding disqualification is made by the judge whose 

impartiality is at issue. Bernard v. Coyne, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994). Opinions formed 

during the course of judicial proceedings “almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or 

Case 1:15-cv-00008-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 07/24/15 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

partiality motion” and can only do so “in the rarest circumstances” where the opinions reveal 

“such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. 

United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56 (1994). Where the source of alleged bias or prejudice is a 

judicial proceeding, plaintiff must show a disposition on the part of the judge that “is so extreme 

as to display clear inability to render fair judgment.” Id. at 551. “The test is „whether a 

reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality 

might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794, 797 (9th Cir. 2000)

(quoting United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir.1997)). “Frivolous and 

improperly based suggestions that a judge recuse should be firmly declined.” Maier v. Orr, 758 

F.2d 1578, 1583 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).

Here, Petitioner alleges that the undersigned must recuse himself because the undersigned 

construed Petitioner‟s June 19, 2015 motion as a motion to expedite the ruling and denied the 

motion. The undersigned is not concerned with his ability to remain impartial. There is no 

evidence of any impropriety in the record and Petitioner is unable to point to anything in the 

record even hinting at such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism that might warrant recusal. 

See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555–56. Therefore, the undersigned will not recuse himself.

II.

MOTION TO STRIKE ORDER

Petitioner requests that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the Court 

strike the June 24, 2015 order denying Petitioner‟s motion to expedite the ruling. In the Court‟s 

June 24, 2015 order, it construed Petitioner‟s motion to enter an order granting the habeas 

petition and releasing Petitioner as a motion to expedite proceedings and denied the motion.

First, the Court notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) is for a court striking 

something from a pleading of one of the parties, and not for a court striking an order from the 

court. It appears that Petitioner is requesting that the Court reconsider in light of Petitioner‟s 

clarifications in the instant motion the Court‟s June 24, 2015 order denying the motion to enter 

an order granting the habeas petition and releasing Petitioner. 

Although Petitioner did not explicitly request to expedite the proceedings, when liberally 

Case 1:15-cv-00008-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 07/24/15 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

construing the motion, the Court found that the motion appeared to be a request for the Court to 

enter a habeas ruling for Petitioner and release Petitioner from custody. In Petitioner‟s July 6, 

2015 motion to strike, he states that the June 19, 2015 motion to enter an order granting habeas 

petition and releasing petitioner “was only saying that his Proposed Order be filed (or the Judge 

Issue his own) when the time comes for Ruling.” (ECF No. 18). Petitioner claims that the 

undersigned is remediless and cannot further participate in the action. Petitioner‟s request 

amounts to a request for the undersigned to recuse himself and for the District Judge to enter 

orders in this action. 

As discussed above, the undersigned does not find reason to recuse himself. The Court 

notes that after the thirty day period for filing objections passes, the assigned District Judge will 

review the Findings and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(c) and Rule 304 of 

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Therefore, the Court does not find reason to alter its denial of Petitioner‟s motion to enter an 

order granting habeas petition and releasing Petitioner and the motion for reconsideration of the 

Court‟s June 24, 2015 order is denied. 

III.

REQUEST TO CERTIFY CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

Petitioner requests certification of his constitutional challenge pursuant to Rule 5.1 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In accordance with Rule 5.1(b), this court “must” certify to 

the appropriate attorney general that a statute has been challenged. However, this Rule does not 

apply in this case because Respondent is an employee of the State of California being sued in his 

official capacity. The Respondent in this case is Warden Joe Lizarraga, who was sued in his 

official capacity. Therefore, the request for certification is denied.1

 

1

In addition, for two of Petitioner‟s challenges, he does not precisely state constitutional questions to state or 

federal statutes. For a challenge to the constitutionality of a state or federal statute, Rule 5.1(a) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure requires notice of the constitutional question stating the question and identifying the paper that 

raises it. Petitioner merely states that he is challenging the constitutionality of “Deering‟s or West‟s Penal Code 

Section(s) Numbers as „Law‟” and that he challenges “The alleged STATE BAR ACT (Stats 1927, Ch. 34, § 2.).” 

(ECF No. 10). Petitioner does not precisely state why these are unconstitutional and the challenge to “Deering‟s or 

West‟s Penal Code Section(s) Numbers as „Law‟” is not a challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute. 

Case 1:15-cv-00008-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 07/24/15 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

IV.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner‟s motion to strike the Court‟s June 24, 2015 order is DENIED;

2. Petitioner‟s motion to recuse the undersigned is DENIED;

3. Petitioner‟s motion for reconsideration of the Court‟s June 24, 2015 order denying 

Petitioner‟s motion to enter an order granting the habeas petition and releasing 

Petitioner is DENIED; and

4. Petitioner‟s request for certification of constitutional question pursuant to Rule 

5.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00008-LJO-SAB Document 20 Filed 07/24/15 Page 4 of 4