Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01765/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01765-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

 The address of the real property at issue is 10632 East Blue Sky Road, Scottsdale,

Arizona 85262 (the Property). 

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bank of New York Mellon, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Rae Ribadeneira, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1765-PHX-GMS (JRI)

ORDER

Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon commenced this action for forcible detainer in

Maricopa County Superior Court on July 30, 2010 against Defendants Rae Ribadeneira and

Doe occupants I through X, case# CV2010-94820.1

 On September 7, 2011, Christopher

Stoller (Stoller), who was then an inmate in the Lake County Jail in Waukegan, Illinois,

removed this case from Arizona state courts for the third time and filed an application to

proceed in forma pauperis on this District’s court-approved form for use by incarcerated

persons. (Doc. 1, 2.) Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the case to state court and seeks

an injunction to prevent Stoller from again removing the case. (Doc. 9.) Stoller has filed a

motion for an extension of time within which to respond to the motion for remand. (Doc.

Case 2:11-cv-01765-GMS--JFM Document 13 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 6
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 -

10.) In the motion for extension of time, Stoller states that he has been transferred to the

Dixon Correctional Center in Dixon, Illinois. (Id.) Stoller has also filed a motion to

disqualify the undersigned, which the Court construes as a motion for recusal. (Doc. 7.)

The Court will deny Stoller’s motion for disqualification. The Court will also deny

Stoller’s in forma pauperis application as incomplete with leave to file a new Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis using the court-approved form and including a six-month inmate

account statement. The Court will grant Stoller’s motion for an extension of time to respond

to the motion for remand and to enjoin Stoller from again removing this case from state court

to the extent that Stoller will be granted 30 days from the filing date of this Order. 

I. Motion for Disqualification

As noted above, Stoller has filed a motion for disqualification or recusal pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section 455(a) provides that a United States judge or magistrate

judge “shall disqualify” himself in any proceeding in which his “impartiality might

reasonably be questioned.” Section 455(b)(1) provides that a judge must also disqualify

himself, where he “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal

knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding[.]” Recusal pursuant to

§ 455(b) is required only if the bias or prejudice stems from an extra-judicial source, not

from conduct or rulings during the course of the proceedings. See Hasbrouck v. Texaco,

Inc., 842 F.2d 1034, 1046 (9th Cir. 1987), aff’d, 496 U.S. 543 (1990); United States v.

Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986) (judge’s prior adverse rulings are insufficient

cause for recusal). “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute [a] valid basis for a bias

or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994). Adverse rulings

should be appealed; they do not form the basis for a recusal motion. Further, where the judge

forms opinions in the courtroom, either in the current proceeding or in a prior proceeding,

these opinions “do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display

a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id.

Stoller seeks disqualification based on the Court’s rulings in this, and other, cases.

Case 2:11-cv-01765-GMS--JFM Document 13 Filed 10/28/11 Page 2 of 6
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

- 3 -

As discussed above, that is not a basis upon which the Court’s impartiality might reasonably

be questioned for purposes of § 455(a). The Court has no personal bias or prejudice against

either Stoller or parties to this action, nor does the Court have personal knowledge of any

disputed evidentiary facts concerning this proceeding. The Court therefore finds that recusal

is not warranted pursuant to § 455.

Stoller also appears to seek disqualification of the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 144.

Section 144 provides: 

Whenever 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.

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias

or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the

beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause

shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one

such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel

of record stating that it is made in good faith.

28 U.S.C. § 144 (emphasis added). 

In this case, Stoller has not filed a “timely and sufficient affidavit.” Instead, Stoller

makes conclusory assertions of a personal bias or prejudice based on the Court’s rulings in

two previous cases with which Stoller disagreed, i.e., the failure to file a proper in forma

pauperis application pursuant to the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act in CV11-1105, and the

lack of subject matter jurisdiction and compliance with removal requirements in CV11-1433.

Stoller otherwise seeks disqualification based on the failure to reach issues he raised in

procedurally improper ways and/or absent federal subject matter jurisdiction. Stoller is not

entitled to rulings on matters not properly before this Court. Because Stoller fails to allege

or show that disqualification is warranted pursuant to §§ 455 or 144, his motion will be

denied. 

II. Payment of Filing Fee

When bringing an action, a prisoner must either pay the $350.00 filing fee in a lump

Case 2:11-cv-01765-GMS--JFM Document 13 Filed 10/28/11 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 -

sum or, if granted the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis, pay the fee incrementally

as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An application to proceed in forma pauperis requires

an affidavit of indigence and a certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement for the

six months preceding the filing of the Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). An inmate must

submit statements from each institution where he was confined during the six-month period.

Id. To assist prisoners in meeting these requirements, the Court requires use of a form

application. LRCiv 3.4(a).

If a prisoner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will assess an

initial partial filing fee of 20% of either the average monthly deposits or the average monthly

balance in Stoller’s account, whichever is greater. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). An initial partial

filing fee will only be collected when funds exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). The balance of

the fee will be collected in monthly payments of 20% of the preceding month’s income

credited to an inmate’s account, each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28

U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). 

III. Stoller’s Application Fails to Comply With Statute

Stoller has used the court-approved form and completed the “Consent to Collection

of Fees from Trust Account” section. However, he has not had the “Certificate of

Correctional Official as to Status of Applicant’s Trust Account” section completed by a

correctional officer, nor has he submitted a certified six-month trust account statement. In

light of these deficiencies, Stoller’s in forma pauperis application will be denied but he will

be granted leave 30 days in which to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a complete

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis using the court-approved form.

IV. Motion for Extension of Time

Stoller has filed a motion for extension of time in which to respond to the Plaintiff’s

motion to remand. The Court will grant Stoller 30 days from the filing date of this Order.

///

///

Case 2:11-cv-01765-GMS--JFM Document 13 Filed 10/28/11 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

V. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Stoller must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Stoller must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal or

remand of this action.

B. Copies

Stoller must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. See

LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice

to Stoller.

C. Possible Dismissal

If Stoller fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss or remand this action without further notice. See Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (a district court may dismiss an action for

failure to comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Clerk of Court must modify Stoller’s address in accordance with the

address stated in his motion for extension of time, Doc. 10.

(2) Stoller’s motion to disqualify is denied. (Doc. 7.)

(3) Stoller’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied. (Doc. 2.) 

(4) Within 30 days of the date this Order is filed, Stoller must either pay the

$350.00 filing fee or file a completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and a

certified six-month trust account statement. 

(5) If Stoller fails to either pay the $350.00 filing fee or file a completed

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis within 30 days, the Clerk of Court must remand

this action to state court without further notice to Stoller.

(6) The Clerk of the Court must mail Stoller a court-approved form for filing an

Case 2:11-cv-01765-GMS--JFM Document 13 Filed 10/28/11 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Non-Habeas). 

(7) Stoller’s motion for extension of time is granted to the extent that Stoller is

granted 30 days from the filing date of this Order in which to respond to Plaintiff’s motion

to remand and to enjoin Stoller from again removing this case, Doc. 9. (Doc. 10.) 

DATED this 28th day of October, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01765-GMS--JFM Document 13 Filed 10/28/11 Page 6 of 6