Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01448/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01448-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

1

 Plaintiff previously brought another civil rights action in this Court, Sandrock v. Shoe,

et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-825-H-WMC (filed on April 14, 2010). On December 9, 2010, the

Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case in its entirety on grounds of failure

to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. No. 66.) Plaintiff appealed the dismissal (Doc. No.

69), and the matter is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. 

- 1 - 11cv1448

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STUART J. SANDROCK,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11-CV-1448-H (WMC)

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

REASSIGN THE CASE

vs.

I. CHOO, M.D., et al.,

Defendants.

On June 23, 2011, Plaintiff Stuart Sandrock, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) On November 8, 2011, Chief

Judge Irma E. Gonzalez transferred this case to this Court pursuant to the low number rule,

Local Civil Rule 40.1. (See Doc. No. 27.) On November 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to

reassign this case to a different judge. (Doc. No. 33.) On December 9, 2011, Defendants filed

a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (Doc. No. 41.) 

In his motion for reassignment, Plaintiff requests that the case be reassigned to a new

judge because this Court accepted the defendants’ view of the facts in the prior litigation.1

(Doc. No. 33 at 1.) “The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455 is whether a

Case 3:11-cv-01448-H-WMC Document 52 Filed 12/30/11 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 - 11cv1448

reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude the judge's impartiality

might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of California, 993 F.2d 710, 712

(9th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986)). “[A]

judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.” Studley, 783 F.2d at 939. To

warrant recusal, judicial bias must stem from an extrajudicial source. Pau v. Yosemite Park

and Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir.1991); Studley, 783 F.2d at 939.

Here, Plaintiff’s request stems from the adverse ruling the Court issued in the previous

case brought by Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 33 at 1.) However, a judicial ruling alone will rarely give

rise to a valid claim for recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Plaintiff

does not allege any extrajudicial source of bias to warrant reassignment of the case. See Pau,

928 F.2d at 885; Studley, 783 F.2d at 939. Additionally, because Plaintiff’s prior and present

case involve substantially similar facts and legal issues, as well as the same defendants,

reassigning the case would be a waste of judicial resources. Accordingly, the Court denies

Plaintiff’s motion to reassign the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 30, 2011

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:11-cv-01448-H-WMC Document 52 Filed 12/30/11 Page 2 of 2