Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05170/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05170-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKARD D. ANDERSON,

Petitioner,

 v.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, et al.,

Respondents.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-5170 SBA (pr)

AMENDED

DISMISSAL ORDER

(Docket nos. 1, 3, 4)

The Court's Order dated April 19, 2005 is hereby amended as follows:

Petitioner Rickard D. Anderson filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus on

December 7, 2004. The Court notified Petitioner in writing that this action was deficient due to the

failure to pay the requisite $5.00 filing fee or, instead, submit a signed and completed court-approved in

forma pauperis (IFP) application, to include a signed certificate of funds and a prison trust account

statement for the previous six months. Petitioner was advised that failure to pay the filing fee or file the

requisite documents would result in dismissal of this action. In response, Petitioner filed two IFP

applications (Docket nos. 3, 4); both applications failed, however, to include a signed certificate of

funds or a copy of the prisoner's trust account statement for the last six months. 

Petitioner has named the undersigned judge as one of the respondents in this action. 28 U.S.C.

§ 455 requires a judge to disqualify herself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably

be questioned. See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). As a federal judge is presumed to be impartial, a substantial

burden is imposed on the party claiming bias or prejudice to show that this is not the case. See United

States v. Zagari, 419 F. Supp. 494, 506 n.30 (N.D. Cal. 1976). In the instant case, Petitioner has not

sought to have the undersigned judge disqualified from this action. Furthermore, there does not exist a

good faith basis for seeking recusal or disqualification of the undersigned judge. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144

and 455. The only contact Petitioner has had with the undersigned judge is through her written orders in

his cases. Judicial rulings, however, almost never constitute a valid basis for a recusal motion. See

Case 4:04-cv-05170-SBA Document 6 Filed 04/27/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Recusal is required only if the alleged judicial bias

or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source, and not from conduct or rulings made during the course

of the proceedings. See Toth v. TWA, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1387-88 (9th Cir. 1988). Absent any

alleged judicial bias or prejudice stemming from an extrajudicial source, the fact that the undersigned

judge is named as one of the respondents does not mandate recusal in the instant case. 

Accordingly, the IFP applications are therefore DENIED and the action is DISMISSED

without prejudice. All pending motions are TERMINATED. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

DATED: April 26, 2005 s/Saundra Brown Armstrong

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05170-SBA Document 6 Filed 04/27/05 Page 2 of 2