Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04266/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04266-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY—No. C-07-04266 RMW

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-filed on 3/31/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN GABOR and KAY GABOR,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS et al.,

Defendants.

No. C-07-04266 RMW

DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY

On October 18, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to recuse the undersigned. The court denies

plaintiffs' motion.

28 U.S.C. § 144 provides for recusal where a party files a timely and sufficient affidavit that

the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against the party

or in favor of an adverse party. The affidavit must state the facts and reasons for such belief. See 28

U.S.C. § 144. A judge finding the motion timely and the affidavits legally sufficient must proceed

no further and another judge must be assigned to hear the matter. See id.; United States v. Sibla, 624

F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980); Local Rule 3-15. If the judge finds the affidavits are not legally

sufficient, recusal is simply denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 144; United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S.

Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995) (affidavit inadequate when based on mere conclusory

Case 5:07-cv-04266-RMW Document 86 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY—No. C-07-04266 RMW2

allegations). A judge is not required to refer a motion to recuse to another judge if the motion is

neither timely nor legally sufficient. See United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify the judge is legally insufficient to support recusal. Recusal is

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

judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626

(9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). However, the papers accompanying plaintiffs' motion set forth a

number of adverse rulings made by this court as a basis for recusal that the undersigned is engaged

in a conspiracy with all judges in the San Jose division of the Northern District of California to

deprive all pro se plaintiffs of due process. The basis of plaintiffs' motion appears to be that the

undersigned (and other judges of this division) have ruled adversely to plaintiffs in plaintiffs' prior

actions. A court's adverse rulings are not an adequate basis for recusal. Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198

F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, plaintiffs' motion to disqualify the judge in this case is

DENIED. 

DATED: 3/31/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04266-RMW Document 86 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY—No. C-07-04266 RMW3

A copy of this document was sent on 4/1/08 to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

John and Kay Gabor

590 Smokey Court

Campbell, CA 95008-3717

PRO SE

Counsel for Defendants:

Marcy Berkman marcy.berkman@cco.sccgov.org

Timothy James Schmal tschmal@bvsllp.com

James A. Scharf james.scharf@usdoj.gov

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Case 5:07-cv-04266-RMW Document 86 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 3