Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-03012/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-03012-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph M Arpaio
Respondent
Demetrius Antwon Wilson
Petitioner

Document Text:

WO

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Demetrius Antwon Wilson,

Petitioner,

v. 

Joseph M Arpaio,

Respondent.

No. CV-16-03012-PHX-JAT (DMF)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Demetrius A. Wilson’s “Notice of Change of 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine and Requesting She Be Removed” (“Motion”), filed 

on September 21, 2016. (Doc. 4). As the title of the motion suggests, Plaintiff seeks to 

remove Magistrate Judge Fine from presiding over the instant Writ of Habeas Corpus 

proceeding.1 Plaintiff contends that she has a “conflict of interest,” stemming from her 

presence in another matter in which Plaintiff is a litigant, 2:16-CV-2096-JAT-DMF.2

 (Id. 

at 1). Having considered Plaintiff’s filing, the Court now rules on the motion.

I.

 Two statutes govern whether a federal judge must recuse in a particular case, Title 

 

1

Plaintiff’s motion also asks that Magistrate Judge Fine be removed from 2:14-

CV-1613-JAT-DMF. The Court’s Order only addresses Plaintiff’s request with respect to 

the instant action. 

2

 Plaintiff also filed a similar motion in 2:16-CV-2096-JAT-DMF that is 

adjudicated by separate order. 

Case 2:16-cv-03012-JAT--DMF Document 7 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 5
- 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

28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 (2012). The Court is unclear as to which statute Plaintiff 

moves under, and will address both with respect to Plaintiff’s claims.3

Section 144 applies when a party to a proceeding believes that the judge “has a 

personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party,” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 144, and “expressly conditions relief upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient 

affidavit.” United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980) (citations omitted). 

Specifically, the statute provides: 

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief 

that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than 

ten days before the beginning of the term [session] at which 

the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown 

for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only 

one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a 

certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good 

faith. 

28 U.S.C. § 144. When a party files a timely and legally sufficient affidavit pursuant to 

section 144, the judge “shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be 

assigned to hear such proceeding.” Id.; Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867. But “if the motion and 

affidavit required by section 144 [are] not presented to the judge, no relief under section 

144 is available.” Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868. 

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that it does not comply with 

the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 144. Plaintiff has not attached any affidavit to 

his motion, let alone one that alleges sufficient facts to satisfy the statute’s demands. 

Thus, to the extent Plaintiff’s motion is brought under section 144, it will be denied, with 

prejudice. 

 

3

See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1235 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted) 

(courts must “liberally construe” the pleadings of pro se litigants); see also Boag v. 

MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam) (courts should liberally construe the 

“inartful pleading” of pro se litigants); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 

1986) (courts in this Circuit should hold “pro se pleadings to a less stringent standard 

than formal pleadings prepared by lawyers”).

Case 2:16-cv-03012-JAT--DMF Document 7 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 5
- 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

Considering Plaintiff’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 455,4 it argues that Magistrate 

Judge Fine must be removed due to a “conflict of interest” with a separate, ongoing 

matter. (Doc. 4 at 1). Reading Plaintiff’s motion liberally, as the Court must, the Court 

finds that Plaintiff’s argument is best characterized as one under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), 

where a judge must “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might 

reasonably be questioned.” See also United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 

(9th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986)), 

cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1171, 115 S. Ct. 1147.5

To be disqualifying, the judge’s bias, partiality, or prejudice must stem from an 

extrajudicial source, as the Supreme Court has held that “judicial rulings alone almost 

never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v. United States, 510 

U.S. 540, 554 (1994). In Liteky, the Supreme Court went on to explain that “opinions 

formed by a judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of 

judicial proceedings do not provide a basis for recusal unless they indicate that the judge 

has ‘a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.’” 

Reed v. Barcklay, No. CV-11-01339-PHC-JAT (JFM), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87988, at 

*11 (D. Ariz. June 25, 2012) (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555). 

Here, Plaintiff’s motion fails for two reasons. First, the motion is accompanied by 

absolutely no facts or evidence in support of Plaintiff’s claim of partiality/conflict of 

interest. Thus, no “reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude the 

 

4

 Section 455 is broader than Section 144 and may be triggered by a party sua 

sponte without the filing of an affidavit. 

5

 Section 455 contains two subsections that arguably hew more closely to 

Plaintiff’s claim of “conflict of interest.” Section 455 (b)(2),(3) speak to disqualification 

where the presiding judge has a conflict of interest stemming from prior, personal 

involvement in the case in either the private or public sector. Plaintiff’s motion, however, 

alleges absolutely no facts that would support removal under either “conflict of interest” 

provision. Thus—despite Plaintiff’s asserted basis—the Court finds that under a liberal 

reading of the motion, Plaintiff in fact alleges partiality or bias on the part of Magistrate 

Judge Fine, which falls under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).

Case 2:16-cv-03012-JAT--DMF Document 7 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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

judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 

993 F.2d 710, 712 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted); see also United States v. 

$292,888.04 U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that allegations of 

bias or partiality that are conclusory in nature are legally insufficient to support 

recusal/removal). Second, the only alleged source of Magistrate Judge Fine’s alleged 

partiality/conflict of interest is the fact that she was assigned to 2:16-CV-2096-JAT-DMF

and has issued a number of “judicial rulings,” expressly foreclosed as an appropriate 

basis for removal by the Supreme Court.

6

Liteky, 510 U.S. at 554.

In light of these realities, Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden under either 28 

U.S.C. §§ 144 or 455(a), and his motion will be denied.

II.

 For the reasons discussed previously, 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

 

6

Plaintiff makes no effort to argue that Magistrate Judge Fine’s prior rulings 

establish that she “has ‘a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair 

judgment impossible.’” Reed, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87988, at *11 (quoting Liteky, 510 

U.S. at 555). 

Case 2:16-cv-03012-JAT--DMF Document 7 Filed 09/29/16 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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

IT IS ORDERED that the reference to the Magistrate Judge is withdrawn only 

with respect to Plaintiff’s “Notice of Change of Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine and 

Requesting She Be Removed,” (Doc. 4), and that all other matters must remain with the 

Magistrate Judge.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiff’s “Notice of Change of 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine and Requesting She Be Removed,” (Doc. 4), seeks 

removal of Magistrate Judge Fine pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144, it is DENIED, with 

prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent Plaintiff’s “Notice of Change of 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine and Requesting She Be Removed,” (Doc. 4), seeks 

removal of Magistrate Judge Fine pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, it is DENIED, without 

prejudice. 

Dated this 28th day of September, 2016.

Case 2:16-cv-03012-JAT--DMF Document 7 Filed 09/29/16 Page 5 of 5