Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05445/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05445-24/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

ROBERT GIBSON, CASE NO. CV-F-03-5445 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF MAGISTRATE

vs.

WARDEN OF CORCORAN STATE PRISON,

 et al., [Doc. 154]

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 November 1, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for recusal of magistrate

(judge) for bias pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. 

In his motion, plaintiff contends that the undersigned has shown bias “by presenting a defense

to defendants, which was not argued or put forth by the defendants.” Plaintiff refers to the Court’s

Findings and Recommendations filed October 23, 2006 in which the Court found that plaintiff’s claims

against defendant Hickman, Yamamoto, Dill, Ortiz and Scribner were not exhausted and therefore

recommended that the claims against these defendants be dismissed. See October 23, 2006 Findings and

Recommendation, p.5:10-19. 

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 188 Filed 09/25/07 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

“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).

“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.

In support of his motion, plaintiff argues that in their motion to dismiss, defendants did not argue

that notice was not given by the appeal but only that their names were not mentioned in the grievance.

Plaintiff contends that exhaustion of administrative remedies was their defense not lack of notice. 

Plaintiff argues that in partially granting the motion, the undersigned used a defense not raised by

defendants. 

Plaintiff’s contention is without merit. In their motion to dismiss, defendants argued that the

only grievance exhausted by plaintiff was grievance CSP-COR 04-1416 and this grievance did not grieve

the claims regarding the March 31, 2004 incident. The Court agreed and found:

Appeal CSP-COR 04-1416 did not grieve plaintiff’s claims against

Hickman, Yamamoto, Dill, Ortiz or Scribner. His claims against these

defendants are based on their positions as supervisors. This appeal did

not place prison personnel on notice these claims. Accordingly, while

plaintiff’s claims against Beer, Gonzales and Hayward were exhausted,

plaintiff’s claims against defendants Hickman, Yamamoto, Dill, Ortiz

and Scribner were not and therefore these claims must be dismissed. 

Plaintiff ‘s disagreement with the rulings of this court is not a proper basis for recusal. Plaintiff’s

request that the undersigned recuse himself from this case is without merit and is therefore denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 24, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05445-LJO -DLB Document 188 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 2