Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01718/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01718-13/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

RODNEY GRAVES BEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN A. HEDGEPETH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-01718-LJO-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL

OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY S. AUSTIN 

(Doc. 72.)

 Rodney Graves Bey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 11, 2010,

Plaintiff filed a motion for Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin to recuse himself from this action. 

A judge must disqualify him or herself where there is bias or prejudice for or against a

party. Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d 1034, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§

455(a), 455(b)(1)), aff'd, 496 U.S. 543, 110 S.Ct. 2535, 110 L.Ed.2d 492 (1990). The bias must

arise from an extra-judicial source and cannot be based solely on information gained in the

course of the proceedings. Id. at 1046; In re Corey, 892 F.2d 829, 839 (9th Cir. 1989). A judge’s

rulings while presiding over a case do not constitute extra-judicial conduct. Nilsson, et al., v.

Louisiana Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538, 1548 (9th Cir. 1988). “ ‘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, 127

1

Case 1:08-cv-01718-LJO-GSA Document 75 Filed 08/25/10 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

L.Ed.2d 474 (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. Under 28 U.S.C. § 144,

“[W]henever a party to any proceeding in a district court 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, but

another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 144.

Plaintiff has filed an affidavit arguing that Magistrate Judge Austin is biased against

Plaintiff and should recuse himself for that reason. Plaintiff alleges that all of the rulings in this

case by Magistrate Judge Austin have been in Defendants’ favor, even though Plaintiff has

pointed out the “trickery and underhanded deceitfulness” used by the Attorney General. Plaintiff

claims the Attorney General has created a false claim in this action under the First Amendment,

when Plaintiff brought claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiff also

contends that his motions for appointment of counsel should have been granted because of his

mental and physical disabilities, of which he submitted evidence. Plaintiff claims that these acts

violate his rights to equal protection. Plaintiff requests that Magistrate Judge Austin recuse

himself, and that all rulings in this action be re-examined for unfairness.

Plaintiff’s motion for removal or recusal must be denied, because a judge’s rulings while

presiding over a case do not constitute extra-judicial conduct. See Nilsson, 854 F.2d at 1538,

1548. All of Plaintiff’s allegations stem from rulings made by Magistrate Judge Austin while

presiding over Plaintiff’s present case. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s rulings is not a

legitimate ground for seeking recusal, and Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied, with prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for recusal of Magistrate

Judge Gary S. Austin, filed on August 11, 2010, is DENIED, with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-01718-LJO-GSA Document 75 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 2