Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02284/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02284-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEN W. ALLUSTIARTE, et al., No. CIV.S-05-2284 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiffs Ben and Linda Allustiarte, proceeding pro se,

have filed documents which the undersigned has construed as a motion

to disqualify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

A judge is required to disqualify himself “in any

proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 

28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The decision regarding disqualification is made

by the judge whose impartiality is at issue. See Bernard v. Coyne,

31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d

934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986). “The test for disqualification under

section 455(a) is an objective one: whether a reasonable person with

Case 2:05-cv-02284-DFL-DAD Document 34 Filed 04/03/06 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

2

knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v.

Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983).

In their motion to disqualify, plaintiffs assert that the

undersigned must disqualify himself because of “bias, prejudice, and

direct friendship with the Defendants, Judges and Attorneys.” 

Plaintiffs’ allegation appears to stem, at least in part, from the

Order and Findings and Recommendations issued by the undersigned on

March 9, 2006. However, an adverse ruling such as that referred to

does not amount to an adequate basis for recusal. See Leslie v.

Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999)(“Leslie's allegations

stem entirely from the district court judge's adverse rulings. That

is not an adequate basis for recusal.”). Further, the undersigned

finds that he has no degree of partiality or bias so that

disqualification is appropriate or required. No reasonable person

with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the undersigned’s

impartiality might reasonably be questioned in this case.

Accordingly, defendants’ request (Doc. nos. 30 & 33) that

the undersigned recuse himself from this matter IS HEREBY DENIED.

DATED: March 31, 2006.

DAD:th

Ddad1/orders.prose/allustiarte2284.recuse

Case 2:05-cv-02284-DFL-DAD Document 34 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 2