Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01625/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01625-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J. W., a minor, By and Through J.E.W., )

His Guardian Ad Litem, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL )

DISTRICT, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

07-CV-01625-AWI-DLB

ORDER OF RECUSAL AND

VACATING HEARING DATE

OF MARCH 3, 2008

(Document # 19)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a judge has an affirmative duty to recuse himself “in any

proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Liteky v. United States,

510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994). If “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would

conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” then recusal is

appropriate. See United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997); United States

v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986).

It has been brought to the attention of the Court that this judge is personally acquainted

with certain witnesses involved in the case. This judge is satisfied that any such personal

acquaintanceships would not affect this judge’s impartiality or the outcome of the case. 

Nonetheless, this judge concludes that because of these personal acquaintanceships, this judge’s

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Case 1:07-cv-01625-LJO-DLB Document 20 Filed 02/15/08 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

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), the undersigned HEREBY DISQUALIFIES

himself from this case. 

Additionally, currently pending before the Court is Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to

dismiss and Rule 12(e) motion for more definite statement. The motions are set for hearing

before the undersigned on March 3, 2008. Given the above recusal, the hearing on the motions

will be VACATED. Upon reassignment of this case, the parties should request a new hearing

date from the newly assigned District Judge.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to randomly reassign this action to another District

Court Judge;

2. The hearing date of March 3, 2008, on Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for

more definite statement is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01625-LJO-DLB Document 20 Filed 02/15/08 Page 2 of 2