Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02449/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02449-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. Asuncion
Respondent
Willie L. Bolds
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE L. BOLDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. ASUNCION,

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-02449-JSC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

DISQUALIFY JUDGE

Re: Dkt. No. 11

Petitioner, a prisoner of the State of California proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his sentence.

1

 Upon initial review of the 

petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court dismissed the petition 

on the grounds that it does not state a cognizable basis for federal habeas relief. Petitioner’s 

motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was 

subsequently denied. Petitioner then filed the instant motion to disqualify the undersigned judge 

under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).2 

Petitioner’s motion is without merit for two reasons. First, this case is no longer before the 

undersigned judge. Judgment has been entered, a notice of appeal has been filed which means that 

this case is now pending in the Court of Appeals, and other than the instant motion there are no 

motions pending in this court. 

Second, Petitioner has not shown sufficient grounds for recusal. Section 455(a) requires a 

 1 Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 3.) 2 Petitioner also cites 28 U.S.C. § 455(e), but that Section simply prohibits waiver of the right to 

seek recusal under Section 455(b) but allows waiver of the right to seek recusal under Section 

455(a). As no recusal waiver has been sought here, Section 455(e) does not apply.

Case 3:16-cv-02449-JSC Document 14 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

judge to disqualify herself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be 

questioned. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The standard for recusal 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. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012). Petitioner asserts that 

the undersigned judge was not impartial in ruling on the motion for relief for judgment, but the 

only explanation he offers for this assertion is that the motion was denied. The denial of 

Petitioner’s motion is not in and of itself a sufficient basis for a reasonable person to question the 

impartiality of the judge. 

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for recusal is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02449-JSC Document 14 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 2