Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00909/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00909-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS LEE HENDERSON, SR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEFFREY A. HOLZ, 

 Defendant. ________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0909 SBA (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO SCREEN COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A AND

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S (1) MOTIONS

TO STRIKE AND (2) MOTION FOR

RECUSAL

(Docket nos. 2, 3, 4, 5)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed this action

as a civil action in the Del Norte County Superior Court, Henderson v. Holz, CV-UJ 06-1395. 

On February 13, 2007, Defendant removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1441(b). Defendant, who is represented by the State Attorney General's Office, has filed a motion

asking the Court to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Plaintiff objects to the removal of this action from state court by filing motions to strike

Defendant's notice of removal and request to screen the complaint. Cases brought under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983, as this one is, may properly be brought in either state or federal court. See Patsy v. Board of

Regents of Florida, 457 U.S. 496, 506-07 (1982). However, a defendant may remove to the

appropriate federal district court "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts

of the United States have original jurisdiction." Chicago v. Int'l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156,

163 (1997) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). The propriety of removal thus depends on whether the

case originally could have been filed in federal court. See id. Removal does not require court action,

but rather is effective upon the defendant's filing of a notice of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). 

Therefore, Plaintiff's objections have no merit. Because this case is filed by a prisoner, the Court

must engage in a preliminary screening of the complaint.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to screen the complaint (docket no. 2) is GRANTED, and

Plaintiff's motions to strike (docket nos. 3, 4) are DENIED. The Court will conduct its initial review

of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A in a separate written Order.

Case 4:07-cv-00909-SBA Document 7 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for recusal (docket no. 5). Recusal is appropriate

where a "reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's

impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir.

1993). 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. United States v. Zagari, 419 F. Supp.

494, 506 n.30 (N.D. Cal. 1976). Judicial rulings alone may constitute grounds for appeal, but almost

never constitute valid basis for a bias or impartiality claim. Liteky v. United States, 114 S. Ct. 1147,

1157 (1994); Toth v. TWA, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1387-88 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Attached to Plaintiff's one-page motion for recusal is his affidavit, which states, "Plaintiff in

the above case declare[s] on good faith and belief that Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong is

prejudice[d] and that [he] cannot have a fair determination in this case." Plaintiff's motion was filed

on February 26, 2007, and since then Plaintiff has not filed any other documents with the Court

stating any reasons to justify recusal. Therefore, this Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated no

grounds upon which to justify recusal. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for recusal (docket no. 5) is DENIED.

This Order terminates Docket nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:5/16/07 _______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-00909-SBA Document 7 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS LEE HENDERSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JEFFREY A HOLZ et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-00909 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 17, 2007, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located

in the Clerk's office.

Curtis Lee Henderson

Pelican Bay State Prison

H-43488

P.O. Box 7500

Crescent City, CA 95531

Dated: May 17, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-00909-SBA Document 7 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 3