Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03299/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03299-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE—C-03-05420 RMW

MAG

E-filed on 11/29/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMAR EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNKNOWN NAMES OF DEPARTMENT

CORRECTION OFFICERS,

Defendants.

No. C-03-05420 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISQUALIFY JUDGE

[Re Docket No. 133]

JAMES EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 

PROBATION DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.

No. C-06-03299 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISQUALIFY JUDGE

[Re Docket No. 61]

On November 19, 2007, plaintiff filed a "Notice of Motion" resubmitting an "Affidavit of

Prejudice, U.S. Judicial Code § 21" that plaintiff initially mailed on July 29, 2007. It is unclear whether

plaintiff seeks relief under section 21 of the Code of Judicial Conduct or under the recusal and

disqualification statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455. Because relief is not generally available under section

Case 5:06-cv-03299-RMW Document 62 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE—C-03-05420 RMW

MAG

2

21 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the court will treat plaintiff's motion as a motion to disqualify the

undersigned. 

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; 28 U.S.C § 455 provides that a judge shall disqualify himself "[w]here he has

a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts

concerning the proceeding." 

"The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455 is whether a reasonable person with

knowledge of all the facts would conclude the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir.1986) (quotations omitted). As stated in previous

orders denying plaintiff's motions to disqualify the undersigned, the court's adverse rulings are not an

adequate basis for recusal. Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999). The alleged

prejudice warranting recusal "must stem from an extrajudicial source." Taylor v. Regents of University

of California, 993 F.2d 710, 712 (1993). "A judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for

recusal." Id. (alterations omitted). 

Here, plaintiff's affidavit sets forth that the court's recent orders overruling plaintiff's objections

to rulings made by the discovery judge demonstrate "prejudice and bias" against plaintiff because they

(1) were not delivered to the plaintiff until 14 days after they were signed; (2) upheld the order of the

discovery judge on the basis that the evidence and argument before the judge supported the ruling made

by the judge; and (3) reminded plaintiff that he should make sure he properly captions his pleadings

because he has multiple cases pending. Plaintiff asserts that the fact that the court itself miscaptioned

orders by utilizing the same defendants' names for orders in both cases further demonstrates this court's

extreme bias and prejudice against him. 

Case 5:06-cv-03299-RMW Document 62 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE—C-03-05420 RMW

MAG

3

Because plaintiff's motion for recusal is based solely on adverse rulings and there is no allegation

of bias from an external source, plaintiff's affidavit is legally insufficient to support recusal.

Accordingly, plaintiff's motion seeking recusal of the undersigned is DENIED. 

DATED: 11/28/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03299-RMW Document 62 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE—C-03-05420 RMW

MAG

4

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS PROVIDED TO:

Counsel for plaintiff:

Jamar Evans

Post Office Box 25

Atwater, CA 95301

PRO SE

Counsel for defendant:

Neysa A. Fligor

Office of the County Counsel 

70 West Hedding Street 

Ninth Floor, East Wing 

San Jose, CA 95110 

Email: neysa.fligor@cco.sccgov.org

Date: 11/29/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-03299-RMW Document 62 Filed 11/29/07 Page 4 of 4