Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05825/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05825-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony J. Malfi
Respondent
Charles Lee Williams
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES LEE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

 v.

ANTHONY J. MALFI, Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-5825 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

(Docket No. 41)

On September 22, 2006, petitioner Charles Lee Williams, a California state prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 25, 2009, the Court denied the petition on the merits.

Petitioner now moves to alter or amend the judgment on grounds that the judge before

whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice against Petitioner. (See Docket

No. 41.) Petitioner contends that the court’s order denying his petition “massively conflicts

with existing law.” “Such arbitrary discretion,” Petitioner asserts, “lacks fair and impartial

consideration.” The Court construes Petitioner’s filing as a motion for recusal. 

A party may move to disqualify, or recuse, a judge from presiding in a given case. 

Motions to disqualify fall under two statutory provisions, 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 455. Section 144 provides for recusal where a party files a timely and sufficient affidavit

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

either against the party or in favor of an adverse party, and setting forth the facts and 

reasons for such belief. See 28 U.S.C. § 144. Similarly, § 455 requires a judge to disqualify

himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 28

U.S.C. § 455(a), including where the judge "has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a

Case 3:06-cv-05825-MMC Document 46 Filed 01/13/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

party,” id. § 455(b)(1). 

A judge finding a § 144 motion timely and the affidavits legally sufficient must

proceed no further and another judge must be assigned to hear the matter. See id.; United

States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). Where the affidavit is not legally

sufficient, however, the judge at whom the motion is directed may determine the matter. See

id. at 868 (holding judge challenged under § 144 properly heard and denied motion 

where affidavit not legally sufficient).

 The substantive test for personal bias or prejudice is identical under §§ 144 and 455. 

See Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868. Specifically, under both statutes recusal is appropriate where “a

reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s

impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 

626 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). Consequently, an affidavit filed under § 144 will raise

a question concerning recusal under §§ 455(a) and (b)(1) as well. Sibla, 642 F.2d at 867. 

Here, as noted, plaintiff moves to disqualify the undersigned on the ground of bias and

prejudice based on the Court’s alleged use of “arbitrary discretion” in denying a petition on

grounds that “massively” conflict with existing law. Plaintiff’s allegations categorically fail

to establish any basis, under either § 144 or § 455, for a determination that the Court’s

impartiality might reasonably be questioned herein, and, consequently, are insufficient as a

matter of law. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (holding judicial

rulings on basis of facts introduced or events occurring in course of judicial proceedings 

“almost never” provide grounds for recusal); Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868 (holding affidavit not

legally sufficient unless it alleges facts demonstrating bias or prejudice that “stems from an

extrajudicial source”). 

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 13, 2010 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05825-MMC Document 46 Filed 01/13/10 Page 2 of 2