Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01380-43/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE H. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-1380-AWI-BAM PC

ORDER DENYINGPLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR

RECUSAL OF THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

(ECF No. 150)

Plaintiff George H. Robinson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for

recusal of the Magistrate Judge and District Court Judge. (ECF No. 150.) Plaintiff brings this

motion on the grounds that the Court refuses to make Defendants follow case law, court rules, and

orders. (Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal 1, ECF No. 150.)

A judge is required to recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might

reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if “he has a personal bias or prejudice against a

party,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). In considering recusal under section 455(a), the question is

“[w]hether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th

Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997)). 

“Parties cannot attack a judge’s impartiality on the basis of information and beliefs acquired

while acting in his or her judicial capacity.” McTiernan, 695 F.3d at 892 (quoting United States v.

Rrias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 853 n.6 (9th Cir. 1982)). In this action, Plaintiff is alleging the source

1

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 161 Filed 12/07/12 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

of the judicial bias or prejudice are the orders issued in response to his motions filed in this action,

however, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partialitymotion.” 

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). “Opinions formed by the judge on the basis of

facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, do not constitute a basis

for a bias or partialitymotion unless they “display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would

make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1044

(9th Cir. 2008). 

The actions taken by the undersigned in this action have been an appropriate response to the

filings and do not reflect a deep-seated antagonism toward Plaintiff or favoritism toward Defendants. 

The rulings do not reflect animosity, partiality, or an inability to render a fair judgment in the instant

action. The undersigned does not have any bias or prejudice, personal or otherwise, toward the

parties, and can be truly impartial in deciding this action. Plaintiff’s motion for recusal shall be

denied.

In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an ordertransferring this action to Magistrate Judge Oberto

as a compromise. Plaintiff sets forth no legal support for his motion to transfer this action and the

request is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for the undersigned to

recuse himself from this action, filed September 10, 2012, (Doc. No. 150) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 30, 2012 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:08-cv-01380-AWI-BAM Document 161 Filed 12/07/12 Page 2 of 2