Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05018-9/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAVIN RHODES, CASE NO. CV-F-02-5018 LJO DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF DISTRICT 

vs. AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE

M. ROBINSON,

 et al., [Docs. 109, 115]

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 31, 2007 and September 26, 2007, plaintiff filed motions for

recusal of the District Judge and Magistrate Judge for bias pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. 

In his motions, plaintiff contends that the District Judge and Magistrate Judge assigned to this

case have shown “overt collective bias and prejudice against plaintiff and in obvious favor of

defendants.” In support of his allegations, Plaintiff refers to several rulings by the Court which were

unfavorable to him. 

“A judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or

if he has a personal bias or prejudice for or against a party.” Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d 1034,

1045 (9th Cir. 1988)(citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), 455(b)(1)), aff’d, 496 U.S. 543, 110 S.Ct. 2535 (1990).

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 124 Filed 01/28/08 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

“The bias must stem from an extrajudicial source and not be based solely on information gained in the

course of the proceedings.” Id. (citing In re Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir.

1984)). “‘Judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.’”

In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.

540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)). “‘In and of themselves . . , they cannot possibly show reliance upon

an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or

antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved.’” Id.

Plaintiff ‘s disagreements with the rulings of this court are not a proper basis for recusal.

Plaintiff’s request that the District Judge and the undersigned recuse themselves from this case is without

merit and is therefore denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 25, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05018-LJO-DLB Document 124 Filed 01/28/08 Page 2 of 2