Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00450/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00450-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1346 Tort Claim

---

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 - 08cv450

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL J. BLAZEVICH and E. BLAZEVICH,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 08cv450-IEG(WMc)

Order Denying Plaintiff Paul

Blazevich’s Motion for Recusal

[Doc. No. 13] 

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, an entity;

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA, a government entity;

IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT, a government entity;

KAREN HEWITT, in her individual capacity

and as United States Attorney for the

Southern District of California; BARBARA

MAJOR, in her individual and former

capacity of Assistant United States Attorney;

MICHAEL FOSTER, in his individual and

capacity as United States Customs Agent;

WILLIAM A. HALL, in his individual and

capacity as Assistant United States Attorney;

and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Paul Blazevich has filed a complaint alleging multiple constitutional claims under

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) arising out of his conviction

and sentence in this Court in Case No. 99cr471. Plaintiff has filed a motion for recusal of Chief

Judge Irma E. Gonzalez, and for disqualification of the entire bench of the Southern District of

California. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a judge must disqualify herself “in any proceeding in

Case 3:08-cv-00450-MMA-WMC Document 15 Filed 09/22/08 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 - 08cv450

which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This is an “objective” standard. United

States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 914 (9th Cir. 2008). Recusal is required “[i]f it would appear to a

reasonable person that a judge has knowledge of facts that would give him an interest in the

litigation.” Id. (citing Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988). 

“The ‘reasonable person’ is not someone who is ‘hypersensitive or unduly suspicious,’ but rather

is a ‘well-informed, thoughtful observer’.” Id. (citing In re Mason, 916 F.2d 384, 386 (7th Cir.

1990)). Alternatively, a judge must disqualify herself “where [s]he has a personal bias or

prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the

proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Under this subsection, a judge must recuse herself when she

harbors actual bias. Holland, 519 F.3d at 915. “In the absence of a legitimate reason to recuse

[herself], ‘a judge should participate in cases assigned’.” Id. at 512 (quoting Maier v. Orr, 758

F.2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

The Court need not recuse from this case under either the objective or subjective standards

of 28 U.S.C. § 455. The majority of Plaintiff’s claims in this case revolve around the Court’s

rulings in Case No. 99cr471. However, a judge’s prior adverse rulings in a proceeding or in

another proceeding do not require recusal. Holland, 519 F.3d at 914 n. 5 (citing United States v.

Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993-94 (10th Cir. 1993)). Nor does a judge’s mere familiarity with the

defendant or the type of charge require recusal. Id. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 22, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-00450-MMA-WMC Document 15 Filed 09/22/08 Page 2 of 2