Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cr-00252/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cr-00252-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James O. Molen
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES O. MOLEN,

Defendant.

No. 2:12-CR-252 TLN

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR RECUSAL

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant James O. Molen’s (“Defendant”) 

motion for recusal (ECF No. 96). This matter was argued before the Court on May 19, 2014, and 

DENIED on the record. Defendant’s motion was subsequently filed on the docket. 

As discussed in detail at the hearing, Defendant has failed to allege any valid reason for 

recusal. Although he alleges that recusal is appropriate because “[Judge] Nunley is acting as a 

lawyer in the proceedings and it is known by the judge to have an interest [sic] that could be 

substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding,” (ECF No. 96 at 2), Defendant has failed 

to allege any facts that would support his claim. Instead, the only reason that Defendant offers in 

support of his assertion is that the Court has continuously denied Defendant’s motions. 

Defendant also asserts that he has not been given hearings on his motions or reasons for their 

denial. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Defendant has had the ability to argue all of his 

motions before this Court and the Court has given legal support for all of its rulings. (See 

Case 2:12-cr-00252-TLN Document 103 Filed 05/21/14 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

2

Minutes from Hearing 10/24/2013, ECF No. 52; Minutes from Hearing 1/09/2014, ECF No. 59;

Minutes from Hearing 4/03/2014, ECF No. 78.) As such, the Court finds that Defendant’s 

motion for recusal (ECF No. 96) is unfounded and is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2014

Case 2:12-cr-00252-TLN Document 103 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 2