Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01767/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01767-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Araya Wolde Giorgis, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Christopher M. Goodman, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-01767-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County on

March 21, 2011 and amended his complaint on July 14, 2011. Defendants Osborn Maledon,

P.A., Jason Romero, and Jones Osborn, II filed a notice of removal to which no known

served defendants objected (doc.1 at 2). Thirteen motions have now been filed in this case.

The defendants who have filed documents can be condensed into seven groups: Christopher

M. Goodman, Geoffrey S. Kercsmar, and Kercsmar & Feltus ("K&F"); Amy L. Ariss,

Thomas Sadvary, Dean Thomas, Jerry Beckerman, and Scottsdale Healthcare ("SHC");

Olson Jantsch and Bakker, P.A. ("OJB"); Thomas, Thomas & Markson, P.C., Benjamin C.

Thomas, and Neal B. Thomas ("TTM"); Mark P. Hummels, William J. Maledon, Jones

Osborn II, Jason J. Romero, and Osborn Maledon P.A. ("OM"); Jennings, Strouss & Salmon,

P.L.C. and John J. Egbert ("JSS"); and First American Title Company and First American

REO Servicing ("FA").

I

Case 2:11-cv-01767-FJM Document 78 Filed 10/19/11 Page 1 of 5
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

We note that, under 28 U.S.C. § 144, plaintiff is only allowed to file one affidavit,

so his second and third affidavits will not be considered. United States v. Barnes, 909 F.2d

1059, 1072 n.16 (7th Cir. 1990).

- 2 -

We have before us plaintiff's motion for recusal (doc. 32), SHC defendants' response

(doc. 33), and plaintiff's reply (doc. 66). We also have joinders in the response from

defendants TTM (doc. 38), OJB (doc. 39), OM (doc. 44), FA (doc. 48), and JSS (doc. 60).

We also have before us plaintiff's motion to disqualify because of bias and prejudice (doc.

37), SHC defendants' response (doc. 53), joinders from TMM (doc. 54), JSS (doc. 62), FA

(doc. 68), and OM (doc. 71), and plaintiff's reply (doc. 66). We also have before us

plaintiff's second motion to disqualify because of bias and prejudice (doc. 55), SHC's

response (doc. 57), TMM's joinder (doc. 54), JSS's joinder (doc. 63), FA's joinder (doc. 68),

and OM's joinder (doc. 71). Finally, there are two other motions to disqualify because of

bias and prejudice (docs. 64 and 72), three separate supporting affidavits (docs. 65, 73, and

77)1

, a separate supplement (doc. 76), and a response from SHC (doc. 75).

Plaintiff requests recusal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 (actual bias) and 455 (the

appearance of bias). Under § 144, whenever a party "makes and files a timely and sufficient

affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice

either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further

therein." This affidavit must "state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or

prejudice exists" and must be filed within ten days from the beginning of the term at which

the proceeding is to be heard. 28 U.S.C. § 144.

 The affidavit must "state facts which if true fairly support the allegation that bias or

prejudice stemming from (1) an extrajudicial source (2) may prevent a fair decision on the

merits." United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 1978). The judge must also

look at "(3) the substantiality of the support given by these facts to the allegation of bias."

Id. at 739-40. "[T]he judge against whom an affidavit is filed may pass upon its legal

sufficiency. . . . [and] properly deny the affidavit for insufficiency if the facts, taken as true,

do not provide fair support for the contention that statutory bias exists." Id.

Case 2:11-cv-01767-FJM Document 78 Filed 10/19/11 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

Plaintiff's affidavit is devoid of any facts. He baselessly alleges the court is racist and

financially corrupted by the defendants. He also claims bias because his previous case before

this court was dismissed. Conclusory statements alleging personal bias or prejudice are not

statements of fact, and do not provide a basis for disqualification. See Willenbring v. United

States, 306 F.2d 944, 946 (9th Cir. 1962). Nor are prior adverse rulings sufficient cause for

removal. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff has not

alleged any facts or reasons which require removal under § 144. Nor are there facts alleged

in the affidavit, which if true, require transfer of the motion to recuse to another judge.

Section 455(a) provides that any judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in

which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." We ask "whether a reasonable

person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might

reasonably be questioned." United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008)

(citation omitted). "The 'reasonable person' is not someone who is 'hypersensitive or unduly

suspicious,' but rather is a 'well-informed, thoughtful observer.'" Id. (quoting In re Mason,

916 F.2d 384, 386 (7th Cir. 1990)). A reasonable person would not question our impartiality

here. Plaintiff's allegations of bias and prejudice are no more than the type of "[r]umor,

speculation, beliefs, conclusions, innuendo, suspicion, opinion, and similar non-factual

matters" that are not sufficient to require a § 455(a) recusal. Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for

Central Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Accordingly,

plaintiff's motions for recusal are denied.

II

We may "proceed no further" in a case until all recusal motions are resolved. 128

U.S.C. § 144. Having resolved the current recusal motions, we now proceed to other

pending, fully briefed motions. Plaintiff filed a motion requesting sanctions and an extension

of time to respond to motions filed between September 7, 2011 and September 23, 2011 (doc.

36). The OM defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to his motion to extend time to

respond, alerting the court that they sent copies of their motion to dismiss and motion for

injunctive relief to the wrong address (doc. 45). The plaintiff alerted defendants to their

Case 2:11-cv-01767-FJM Document 78 Filed 10/19/11 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

mistake and they sent copies of their motions to the correct address that day. Plaintiff timely

filed a response to these motions (doc. 46) and later filed a supplement and errata to his

response (doc. 52). Accordingly, this motion is now moot.

Plaintiff requests additional time to serve the remaining defendants and additional

time to amend his complaint (doc. 40). In the same motion, he opposes removal because

some defendants have not yet been served. The SHC defendants responded (doc. 42) and

plaintiff did not file a reply. Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that a court must dismiss

an action against a defendant who has not been served within 120 days after the complaint

is filed, unless plaintiff shows "good cause for the failure." Plaintiff made no attempt to

show why he has been unable to serve the remaining defendants. He filed his complaint on

March 21, 2011 and the time to accomplish service was extended to September 16, 2011.

Plaintiff does not offer any reason why he needs another extension of time. As a result, we

deny his request for an extension of time to serve defendants. 

In addition, we deny plaintiff's request to amend his complaint. Plaintiff has already

amended his complaint once; therefore, under Rule 15(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., he may amend

now only with the opposing parties' written consent or if justice so requires us to grant leave

to amend. Plaintiff has given us no information as to how or why he wishes to amend.

Because he has failed to comply with LRCiv 15.1, we have no way to know whether

amendment should be allowed. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465

F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (court need not grant leave to amend when amendment

prejudices the opposing parties, is sought in bad faith, produces an undue delay, or is futile).

Therefore, because nothing in his request shows that justice would be served by allowing an

amendment, his request is denied.

Finally, we also deny plaintiff's repeated requests for sanctions. He has failed to

provide any legal authority supporting his request or any facts which show sanctions would

be warranted.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motions for recusal and disqualification

(docs. 32, 37, 55, 64, and 72). 

Case 2:11-cv-01767-FJM Document 78 Filed 10/19/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (doc. 36)

as moot.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion requesting extensions of time to

serve defendants and amend his complaint (doc. 40).

We urge plaintiff to cease his abuse of the system. We also urge plaintiff to seek the

advice of a lawyer. If he does not have one, he may wish to contact the Lawyer Referral

Service of the Maricopa County Bar Association at 602-257-4434.

DATED this 19th day of October, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01767-FJM Document 78 Filed 10/19/11 Page 5 of 5