Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00320/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00320-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

27

28 Plaintiff filed the motion prior to retaining counsel. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES R. BRISCOE, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00320-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL

(Doc. 21)

Plaintiff James R. Briscoe, III (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 16, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion

seeking recusal of the undersigned.1

“A judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,

or if he has a personal bias or prejudice for or against a party.” Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d

1034, 1045 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), 455(b)(1)), aff’d, 496 U.S. 543, 110 S.Ct.

2535 (1990). “The bias must stem from an extrajudicial source and not be based solely on

information gained in the course of the proceedings.” Id. (citing In re Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752

F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1984)). “‘Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for

a bias or partiality motion.’” In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)). “‘In and of themselves . . , they

cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances

Case 1:07-cv-00320-AWI -MJS Document 26 Filed 09/13/07 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

evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is

involved.’” Id.

Plaintiff takes issue with several rulings by the undersigned. The rulings at issue are fully

supported by the relevant caselaw and plaintiff has made no showing otherwise. Plaintiff’s

disagreement with the rulings is not grounds for recusal in any event. Further, plaintiff’s assertion

that he did not consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction and therefore the undersigned may not issue

rulings in his case is without merit. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72-302. 

Plaintiff’s motion requesting that the undersigned recuse herself is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00320-AWI -MJS Document 26 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 2