Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02104/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02104-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Richard Butts
Petitioner
United States of America
Respondent

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

WO KM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Paul Richard Butts, 

Defendant/Movant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2104-PHX-MHM (DKD)

No. CR 05-1127-PHX-MHM

ORDER

On September 30, 2010, Movant Paul Richard Butts, who is confined in the Federal

Correctional Institution-Beaumont in Beaumont, Texas, filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set

Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

In a November 29, 2010 Order, the Court required Plaintiff to respond to the Motion. On

December 16, 2010, Movant filed a Motion for Recusal (Doc. 6).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a court

established by Act of Congress may “move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate,

set aside, or correct the sentence” (emphasis added). It is therefore the practice of this Court

to assign § 2255 motions to the sentencing judge. Moreover, a motion to recuse a judge must

demonstrate that any alleged bias or impartiality stems from extrajudicial conduct, i.e., a

litigant may not seek recusal based on a prior adverse ruling in the case. See Hasbrouck v.

Texaco, Inc., 830 F.2d 1513 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing In re Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752 F.2d

1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1984)) (28 U.S.C. § 455(a) & (b)(1)); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d

934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986) (same); United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966)

Case 2:10-cv-02104-DGC Document 7 Filed 01/04/11 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 -

(28 U.S.C. § 144). Movant’s Motion for Recusal is based on prior adverse rulings in his

criminal case and not on allegations of impartiality stemming from extrajudicial conduct.

The Court will therefore deny the Motion for Recusal.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdraw with respect to Movant’s

December 16, 2010 Motion for Recusal. All other matters must remain with the Magistrate

Judge as appropriate.

(2) Movant’s December 16, 2010 Motion for Recusal (Doc. 6) is denied.

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02104-DGC Document 7 Filed 01/04/11 Page 2 of 2