Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01495/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01495-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Larry Lee Moore, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1495-PHX-GMS (JRI)

ORDER

On February 3, 2012, Plaintiff Larry Lee Moore filed a “Motion to Request Case to

be Before a Different Bench (Judge) (Request Displacement)” (Doc. 26). Plaintiff contends

that the undersigned “somehow has taken a personal interest in these matters, and has made

it his personal duty to ‘dismiss’ any and all of [Plaintiff’s] filed complaints to the Court,

showing signs of Judicial Misbehavior: Mala In Se/Civil Disob[e]d[i]ence.” Plaintiff states

that he “wishes to have no concerns with a Judge (Court) who has taken personal interest,

feelings, the threats and relayed opinions by the presiding Judge over this case./This ‘wouldnot’ be fair for any and all parties involved.” Plaintiff claims that the Court’s most recent

Order “made the impressions to that of a grudging and discriminative nature. This may-not

allow [Plaintiff] to present, participate [his] legal recourse under the(se) humiliating

conditions.” Plaintiff also contends that because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

remanded this case for the Court “to correct its errors,” having the case assigned to the same

judge “would be a hurdle/obst[a]cle of considerable size, thoughts and opinions of no chance

for a favorable or fair outcome.”

Case 2:10-cv-01495-GMS--JFM Document 27 Filed 02/08/12 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

1

The Court also notes that the Court of Appeals had the power under 28 U.S.C. § 2106

to assign this case to a different district court judge on remand, see Living Designs, Inc. v.

E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 431 F.3d 353, 372 (9th Cir. 2005), but did not do so.

- 2 -

“The substantive standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455 is

the same: ‘[W]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude

that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” United States. v. Hernandez,

109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939

(9th Cir. 1986)). In order to prevail on a motion for recusal, a plaintiff must show either

extrajudicial bias or a deep-seated unequivocal antagonism toward the plaintiff. See Liteky

v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-56 (1994). “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never

constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Id. at 555. “[O]pinions formed by

the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current

proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion

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

impossible.” Id. 

A reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts in this case would not conclude

that the Court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. A reasonable person with

knowledge of all the facts would conclude that Plaintiff has sought recusal of the undersigned

because Plaintiff does not like the Court’s rulings. This is insufficient to support recusal or

disqualification.1

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion to Request Case to be Before a Different

Bench (Judge) (Request Displacement)” (Doc. 26) is denied.

DATED this 8th day of February, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-01495-GMS--JFM Document 27 Filed 02/08/12 Page 2 of 2