Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_95-cv-02342/USCOURTS-azd-2_95-cv-02342-1/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)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gerald M. Moore, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

George A. Herman, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 95-2342-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Gerald Moore’s (“Moore”) Motion for Assignment of New

District Judge Due to a Potential Appearance of Bias, Prejudice or Impartiality. (Dkt. 71.)

After careful consideration, the Court finds the following.

BACKGROUND

A. Statement of Facts

 Sometime prior to 1990, Moore was engaged in a temporary landscaping relationship

with the judge presiding over this Court. (Dkt. 73 Affidavit ¶ 3.) In 1990, Moore contacted

this Court “to inquire as to the procedure for filing a petition of habeas corpus.” (Id. ¶ 4.) 

B. Procedural History

Moore filed a pro se petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on October 27, 1995. (Dkt. 1.)

The petition was randomly assigned to this Court, and subsequently referred to Magistrate

Case 2:95-cv-02342-NVW Document 75 Filed 08/12/08 Page 1 of 5
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

Magistrate Judge Sitver has since retired.

2

The only involvement this Court had in the matter prior to adopting the Report and

Recommendation was denying a motion to reconsider one of Magistrate Judge Sitver’s

Orders. (Dkt. 24.)

- 2 -

Judge Sitver1

. (Dkt. 2.) This Court initially dismissed the petition with leave to amend.

(Dkt. 3.) After Moore amended and re-filed his petition, the matter was again before

Magistrate Judge Sitver. Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Sitver drafted a detailed Report and

Recommendation recommending that the petition be dismissed. (Dkt. 52.) This Court

adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissed the petition. (Dkt. 56.)2

Moore then appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On remand from the Ninth Circuit, this Court

dismissed Moore’s petition without prejudice on August 4, 1999. (Dkt. 66.)

On February 7, 2008, Moore, through counsel, moved to reinstate his habeas petition.

(Dkt. 67.) The instant motion was filed on June 20, 2008.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Disqualification of judges is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(a). Section 144

reads: 

“Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and

sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias

or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall

proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice

exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at

which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it

within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be

accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.”

The timeliness clause (“shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term

at which the proceeding is to be heard”) has been interpreted to mean ten days prior to the

start of the trial of the issue. See U.S. v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999). Section

455(a) states that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate [magistrate judge] of the United States

shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be

Case 2:95-cv-02342-NVW Document 75 Filed 08/12/08 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

questioned.” Questions regarding a judge’s impartiality must generally arise from

“extrajudicial” factors; sources other than the judicial proceeding at hand. Liteky v. United

States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994). When evaluating a motion to disqualify a judge, the Ninth

Circuit employs an objective test. Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for Central Dist. of Cal., 428

F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005). Under both recusal statutes, the substantive standard is

“whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s

impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or “whether a reasonable person perceives a

significant risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits.” Id.

(citations omitted); Pesnell v. Arsenault, 2008 WL 2579197, *4 (9th Cir. 2008). The Ninth

Circuit has recognized a helpful, nonexhaustive Tenth Circuit list of various matters not

ordinarily sufficient to require a recusal. Clemens, 428 F.3d at 1178. These matters include:

(1) Rumor, speculation, beliefs, conclusions, innuendo, suspicion, opinion, and similar

non-factual matters; (2) the mere fact that a judge has previously expressed an opinion

on a point of law or has expressed a dedication to upholding the law or a determination

to impose severe punishment within the limits of the law upon those found guilty of a

particular offense; (3) prior rulings in the proceeding, or another proceeding, solely

because they were adverse; (4) mere familiarity with the defendant(s), or the type of

charge, or kind of defense presented; (5) baseless personal attacks on or suits against

the judge by a party; (6) reporters’ personal opinions or characterizations appearing in

the media, media notoriety, and reports in the media purporting to be factual, such as

quotes attributed to the judge or others, but which are in fact false or materially

inaccurate or misleading; and (7) threats or other attempts to intimidate the judge.

 Id. (citing Nichols v. Alley, 71 F.3d 347, 351 (10th Cir. 1995)).

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural requirements

The only procedural requirements for a recusal affidavit are included in 28 U.S.C. § 144.

The affidavit must (1) be timely, or (2) indicate good cause why it is untimely, and (3) be the

only such affidavit filed in the matter, and (4) be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of

record stating that it is made in good faith. Id.

No trial date for this matter has been set, therefore Moore’s affidavit is timely. Moore’s

motion meets the third procedural prong demanded by § 144 because no other recusal

requests have been filed. Further, Moore’s motion is accompanied by a certification of good

Case 2:95-cv-02342-NVW Document 75 Filed 08/12/08 Page 3 of 5
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 3

This quote was supplied by Moore out of context of the surrounding conversation.

- 4 -

faith by his counsel of record. Thus, procedural requirements have therefore been satisfied

by Moore.. 

B. Substantive requirements

“[T]he facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists” required by § 144

cited by Moore include: “repeated seasonal landscape-type work [for the judge] . . . over a

period of several years,” which terminated sometime before 1990, possible “discomfort to

the assigned District Judge and to [Moore]” due to Moore’s appearance in the courtroom, and

a statement made by the presider of this Court in 1990 that, at the time, “if a case involving

[Moore] was assigned to [this Court]” the presider “would have to remove himself.” (Dkt.

73 at 1-2; Dkt. 73 Affidavit ¶¶ 3-4.)3

The Court must exercise its discretion to determine whether a reasonable person would

believe this contractual, seasonal relationship nearly two decades ago would create a present

day “risk that the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits.” Moore argues

that the Judge’s mere familiarity with the defendant creates a “potential for an appearance

of bias or prejudice” or a “question as to the Judge’s impartiality.” This rationale was

explicitly held “not ordinarily sufficient” to require a recusal by the Ninth Circuit in

Clemens. Clemens, 428 F.3d at 1178. Since the phone call regarding a specific filing

procedure was made, Moore’s “prior interaction with the Court was always by way of written

motion pleadings . . . .” (Dkt. 73 at 2.) The Supreme Court in Liteky explicitly ruled such

interactions “almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion . . . unless

they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment

impossible.” 510 U.S. at 554-555. Moore has not indicated anything resulting from the prior

relationship or his interactions with the Court which would indicate any bias this Court has

against him, or has in favor of his opponent. As Moore has supplied no extraordinary

circumstances that would suggest the prior relationship was beyond the type mentioned in

Clemens, this Court does not believe a reasonable person aware of this former seasonal

Case 2:95-cv-02342-NVW Document 75 Filed 08/12/08 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

relationship “would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

The considerable passage of time and complete lack of personal interaction with Moore has

removed any questions regarding this Court’s ability to remain impartial. 

Although Plaintiff has failed to establish a legal basis for disqualification, the undersigned

concludes that recusal and reassignment would best serve the parties and the Court.

CONCLUSION

In light of the reasons set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Moore’s Motion For Assignment of New

District Judge Due to a Potential Appearance of Bias, Prejudice or Impartiality. (Dkt. 71.)

The undersigned hereby RECUSES himself and ORDERS that the case be referred to the

Clerk of the Court for reassignment to another judge of this Court by random lot.

DATED this 12th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:95-cv-02342-NVW Document 75 Filed 08/12/08 Page 5 of 5