Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02524/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02524-14/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID C. RIVERS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2524 GEB EFB P

vs.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel seeking relief for alleged civil rights violations. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff commenced this action on November 29, 2004. On October 4,

2007, plaintiff filed a request that the district judge withdraw the referral to the undersigned

because he is “deeply dissatisfied” with how the undersigned is handling this case. The court

construes this request as motion to disqualify the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 455(a)(b)(1). For the reasons explained below, the court finds that there is no basis for

disqualification.

A judge is required to disqualify himself if 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). Plaintiff does not articulate the precise reasons for why he is dissatisfied,

but presumably he is unhappy with prior written rulings on his case. Notwithstanding his

Case 2:04-cv-02524-GEB-EFB Document 48 Filed 11/01/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

dissatisfaction, he identifies no basis for recusal here. Remarks made during the course of a

judicial proceeding that are critical or hostile to a party or his case ordinarily will not support a

bias or partiality claim unless they reveal an extrajudicial source for the opinion, or “such a high

degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United

States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994). The decision regarding disqualification is made by the judge

whose impartiality is at issue. Bernard v. Coyne, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994).

Where the source of alleged bias or prejudice is a judicial proceeding, plaintiff must

show a disposition on the part of the judge that “is so extreme as to display clear inability to

render fair judgment.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 541. “Opinions formed by the judge on the basis of

facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior

proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deepseated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. at 555. Bias is

not found where the judge has expressed anger or dissatisfaction or annoyance that are within the

bounds of reasonable behavior. Id.

The test for disqualification under section 455 is whether a reasonable person with

knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be

questioned. United States v. Winston, 613 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1980). Evaluations of

impartiality, bias or prejudice under section 455 are made using an objective standard. Id. 

 Evaluated under this objective standard, plaintiff’s motion fails to demonstrate personal

bias or lack of impartiality. In its totality, plaintiff’s request reads:

I am deeply dissatisfied on the way my court proceedings are being handled by

the Honorable Magistrate Judge Brennan. I prefer [that the district judge] handle

my court proceedings or recommend another referral judge. 

The court notes that plaintiff has been transferred twice during the pendency of this action,

resulting in delay. Furthermore, the date for filing dispositive motions has been vacated. 

However, delays from such events are common in federal civil rights actions brought by

prisoners. Plaintiff’s motion must fail because he identifies no particular fact even to suggest

Case 2:04-cv-02524-GEB-EFB Document 48 Filed 11/01/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

that the undersigned harbors the least bit of personal bias or prejudice against plaintiff. 

For all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s October 10, 2007, request, construed as a motion

to disqualify, is DENIED.

So Ordered.

DATED: October 31, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-02524-GEB-EFB Document 48 Filed 11/01/07 Page 3 of 3