Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00492/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00492-1/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY F. FISHER,

aka BARGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARRIOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00492-WHO (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISQUALIFY

Dkt. No. 34

This federal habeas action was dismissed in March 2015 because petitioner Gary 

Fisher failed to comply with the Court’s order to file a complete application to proceed in 

forma pauperis (“IFP”), or pay the full filing fee of $5.00. Fisher moves to disqualify the 

presiding judge (Docket No. 34) in this now-closed action. He alleges in conclusory 

fashion that I am corrupt and have made mistakes. (Id. at 1 and 3.) 

A party may move to disqualify, or recuse, a judge from presiding in a given case. 

Motions to disqualify fall under two statutory provisions, 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 455. Because it is not clear which provision Fisher is invoking, I will assume he brought 

it under both section 144 and section 455. Section 144 provides for recusal where a party 

files a timely and sufficient affidavit averring that the judge before whom the matter is 

pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against the party or in favor of an adverse 

party, and setting forth the facts and reasons for such belief. See 28 U.S.C. § 144. 

Similarly, § 455 requires a judge to disqualify himself “in any proceeding in which his 

Case 3:15-cv-00492-WHO Document 37 Filed 10/14/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), including where the 

judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,” id. § 455(b)(1). 

A judge finding a § 144 motion timely and the affidavits legally sufficient must 

proceed no further and another judge must be assigned to hear the matter. United States v. 

Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). Where the affidavit is not legally sufficient, 

however, the judge at whom the motion is directed may determine the matter. See id. at 

868 (holding judge challenged under § 144 properly heard and denied motion where 

affidavit not legally sufficient). 

The substantive test for personal bias or prejudice is identical under §§ 144 and 455. 

See Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868. Specifically, under both statutes 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) (citation omitted). Consequently, an affidavit filed under § 144 will 

raise a question concerning recusal under §§ 455(a) and (b)(1) as well. Sibla, 624 F.2d at 

867. 

Fisher’s allegations do not show that a reasonable person would conclude that my 

impartiality might reasonably be questioned. His statements are conclusory. He provides 

no details (let alone evidence) regarding my alleged corruption or mistakes. Without 

providing specific facts to support his allegations, his motion to disqualify is insufficient as 

a matter of law and is therefore DENIED. 

The Clerk shall terminate Docket No. 34. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 14, 2015

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00492-WHO Document 37 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 2