Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00555/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00555-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES ANTHONY GREENE, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

NEAL McCALEB, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv0555 OWW DLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(Document 11)

Plaintiff is proceeding in pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff filed his complaint on

April 21, 2005. On April 29, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation

that the complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff has not yet filed an opposition. 

On May 4, 2005, Plaintiff filed a document in which he requested the Court disqualify

Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 454 and 455. 

28 U.S.C. § 144 provides that where a party files a sufficient affidavit that the judge has a

personal bias or prejudice against the movant or another party, another judge shall be assigned to

the proceeding. Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 455 provides that, under certain circumstances, a judge

must disqualify himself in a proceeding where his impartiality might be reasonably questioned. 

A judge’s ruling, however, is not grounds for disqualification under either statute. Liteky v. U.S.,

510 U.S. 540 (1994). 

Case 1:05-cv-00555-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 05/10/05 Page 1 of 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

2

The focus of Plaintiff’s motion is the Magistrate Judge’s rulings in the instant action,

including the unfavorable April 29, 2005, Findings and Recommendation. This is not a basis for

disqualification.

Plaintiff further alleges that the Magistrate Judge is “practicing law which is illegal in

american law, and only wishes to either discourage, disenfranchise the plaintiff, by blanton

rejection, due to the fact the defendant(s) are a U.S. Government Administration and Bureau, and

will stop at nothing to do so. Despite being bound by oath pursuant to 28 USCS 453.” Motion,

at 2. However, he presents nothing more than this conclusory statement in support of his

contention. This is insufficient to make the required showing under either 28 U.S.C. § 144 or

455.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00555-OWW -DLB Document 12 Filed 05/10/05 Page 2 of 2