Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02120/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02120-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KENNY LYNN WARREN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DOMINGO URIBE, JR., 

Respondent. 

No. 2:10-cv-2120-MCE-EFB P 

ORDER 

 On August 26, 2013, judgment was entered in this action denying petitioner’s application 

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the case was closed.1 ECF Nos. 62, 

63. Subsequently, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of a previous order denying a 

discovery request, and a request for judicial notice of the nature of petitioner’s gunshot wounds. 

ECF Nos. 64, 65. By an order dated September 25, 2013, informed petitioner that all documents 

filed after the closing date of this action would be disregarded and no orders would issue in 

response to future filings. ECF No. 66. 

 On September 27, 2013, petitioner filed a notice of appeal of the August 26, 2013 

judgment. He also filed a motion for certificate of appealability and a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis on appeal. This court denied petitioner’s motions by order dated October 8, 2013. ECF 

 1

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. 

Case 2:10-cv-02120-MCE-EFB Document 93 Filed 07/06/15 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 

27 

28 

2

No. 71. On May 30, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied petitioner’s 

request for a certificate of appealability and denied all other pending motions as moot. 

 On August 28, 2014, petitioner filed a document entitled “motion: under Rule 60(b)(3) 

fraud upon the court.” ECF No. 75. An order dated September 5, 2014, again informed 

petitioner that documents filed after the closing date of this action would be disregarded. ECF 

No. 76. Petitioner filed an appeal of the September 5, 2014 order. That order was vacated by the 

Ninth Circuit, which construed petitioner’s motion as a timely request for relief pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 60(b) and remanded the matter for further proceedings.2 ECF No. 81. On March 5, 

2015, this court directed respondent to file a response to petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion. That 

response has been filed (ECF No. 87) and petitioner has filed a reply.3

 On May 12, 2015, petitioner filed a document entitled “Motion and Declaration in Support 

to Recuse Magistrate Judge for Bias and Prejudice.” Therein, petitioner requests recusal of the 

undersigned because of rulings the undersigned has made in this action, and particularly the 

September 5, 2014 order disregarding his motion for fraud upon the court. 

 Title 28 U.S.C. § 455 requires recusal if the judge’s alleged bias or prejudice “stems from 

an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the 

proceedings.” Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988). “A 

judge’s previous adverse ruling alone is not sufficient bias.” Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 

607 (9th Cir. 1984). Because petitioner’s request for recusal is based on his disagreement with 

rulings made during the course of these proceedings in this court, and not from any extrajudicial 

source, petitioner’s request for recusal is denied.4

 2

 The order of remand noted that referral of a Rule 60(b)(3) motion for disposition must 

proceed by way of findings and a recommendation absent consent of the parties. Although 

petitioner has consented to proceed before a magistrate judge, ECF No. 4, the respondent has not, 

ECF No. 9. 

3

 Petitioner further filed a request to amend his Rule 60(b)(3) motion to also include 

requests for relief under Rules 60(b)(4) and (6). ECF No. 86. That filing will be address in the 

ruling on the merits of the Rule 60(b)(3) motion. 

4

 Petitioner’s motion also alleges bias and prejudice. The undersigned does not know 

petitioner and does not harbor any bias or prejudice against him. 

Case 2:10-cv-02120-MCE-EFB Document 93 Filed 07/06/15 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 

27 

28 

3

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for recusal (ECF No. 

89) is denied. 

DATED: July 2, 2015. 

Case 2:10-cv-02120-MCE-EFB Document 93 Filed 07/06/15 Page 3 of 3