Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02707/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02707-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA A. MCCOLM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2707 MCE EFB PS

vs.

RESTORATION GROUP, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

This action, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the

undersigned under Local Rule 72-302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

On March 14, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify the undersigned pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 455(a)(b)(1). On March 19, 2007, defendant Sandra Johnson filed an opposition to

plaintiff’s motion. 

A judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if he has a personal bias or prejudice against a party. 28

U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Remarks made during the course of a judicial proceeding that are critical or

hostile to a party or his case ordinarily will not support a bias or partiality claim unless they

reveal an extrajudicial source for the opinion, or “such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism

as to make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994.) The

Case 2:06-cv-02707-MCE -EFB Document 76 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

decision regarding disqualification is made by the judge whose impartiality is at issue. Bernard

v. Coyne, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994).

Where the source of alleged bias or prejudice is a judicial proceeding, plaintiff must

show a disposition on the part of the judge that “is so extreme as to display clear inability to

render fair judgment.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 541. “Opinions 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 deepseated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. at 555. Bias is

not found where the judge has expressed anger or dissatisfaction or annoyance that are within the

bounds of reasonable behavior. Id.

The test for disqualification under section 455 is whether a reasonable person with

knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be

questioned. United States v. Winston, 613 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1980). Evaluations of

impartiality, bias or prejudice under section 455 are made using an objective standard. Id. 

 Evaluated under this objective standard, plaintiff’s motion and supporting affidavit fail to

demonstrate personal bias or lack of impartiality. Plaintiff complains of judicial actions taken

throughout this case. For example, plaintiff alleges that the undersigned failed to accommodate

her disabilities by granting her an extension of one week rather than thirty days to file an

opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendant’s motion was originally filed on January

25, 2007, and originally set for hearing on March 5, 2007. On February 1, 2007, it was renoticed for hearing on March 7, 2007, which, under the Local Rules, gave plaintiff a total of

twenty-seven days from the date the motion was filed to the time her opposition was due; this is

almost twice the time allowed under the Local Rules. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(c). With the

extension, plaintiff was given until February 28, 2007, to file an opposition to the motion to

dismiss originally filed on January 25, 2007. This in effect gave her thirty-four days to file an

////

Case 2:06-cv-02707-MCE -EFB Document 76 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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

1

 Further, despite her purported inability to file an opposition due to alleged impairments

requiring her to spend “4-5 times the usual time to accomplish any written work,” plaintiff

managed to file between January 25, 2007 and February 28, 2007, no less than thirteen separate

documents, some of which were substantial in length. See Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for

Order Continuing Hearing, at 2:9-12; see docket entry nos. 33, 39-50. The court’s granting

plaintiff a one-week extension was reasonable, and not motivated by bias or impartiality. 

“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” 

Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.

2

 By her references to her “reputation,” plaintiff seems to object to the Request for

Judicial Notice filed by defendant, in which defendant asks the court to take notice of plaintiff’s

litigation history. As indicated at the hearing on March 14, 2007, the undersigned finds such

information irrelevant to this action, and will decline to take judicial notice thereof. 

3

opposition – over twice the amount of time normally allowed.1

 That plaintiff was unhappy with

that result does not establish a basis for disqualification. 

Plaintiff’s motion and supporting affidavit contain similar complaints about the

undersigned’s decisions and this court’s local rules. See Plaintiff’s Declaration, at ¶¶11,12 (“The

rules of court appear to conform to what may be an entire bench directed toward ‘getting rid of’

pro se cases as fast as possible. This is neither fairness nor impartiality. It is rape! Apparently,

in this court, the rapist can continue to rape by reason of the ‘reputation of the victim. . . .”).2

The hyperbole aside, plaintiff fails to point to objective evidence showing that the undersigned’s

impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or that he has a personal bias or prejudice against

plaintiff. 

For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s March 14, 2007, motion to disqualify is

DENIED.

So Ordered.

DATED: April 9, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02707-MCE -EFB Document 76 Filed 04/10/07 Page 3 of 3