Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00086/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-00086-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1345 Foreclosure

---

1

Case No.: 5:16-cv-00086-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARK FEATHERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA , N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:16-cv-00086-EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 49

Presently before the court is a document filed by Plaintiff Mark Feathers entitled “Request 

for Disqualification of Assigned Judge Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144.” Dkt. No. 49. The court 

construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion and affidavit for recusal under the indicated statute.1 

Under § 144, “[w]henever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a 

timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias 

or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no 

further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.” Recusal is 

appropriate only where “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that 

the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” and may rest on either “actual bias or the 

appearance of bias.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993). A district 

judge has a duty to disqualify himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might 

reasonably be questioned” or where “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or 

 

1

The undersigned must pass on the legal sufficiency of the § 144 affidavit in the first instance. 

See Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1387-88 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Only after the 

legal sufficiency of the affidavit is determined does it become the duty of the judge to ‘proceed no 

further’ in the case.”).

Case 5:16-cv-00086-EJD Document 57 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:16-cv-00086-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION

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

personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), 

(b)(1). But at the same time, “[f]ederal judges are obligated not to recuse themselves where there 

is no reason to question their impartiality.” New York City Housing Develop. Corp. v. Hart, 796 

F.2d 976, 980 (7th Cir. 1986). To that end, the “reasonable person” standard does not contemplate 

“someone who is ‘hypersensitive or unduly suspicious,’ but rather is a ‘well-informed, thoughtful 

observer.’” United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Mason, 916 

F.2d 384, 386 (7th Cir. 1990)). Moreover, § 144 requires recusal “only if the bias or prejudice 

stems from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the 

proceeding.” Toth, 862 F.2d at 1388. 

The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s document but finds it legally insufficient. 

Plaintiff’s conclusion of bias stems from conduct or rulings made in another proceeding in which 

Plaintiff is a defendant. Because they do not stem from an extrajudicial source, neither those 

rulings nor the fact that Plaintiff has appealed from them provide a valid basis for the 

undersigned’s recusal. Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Liteky 

v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994)). 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-00086-EJD Document 57 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2