Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06168/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06168-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roxanne Ari
Petitioner
Deborah L. Patrick
Respondent

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROXANNE ARI,

Petitioner,

 vs.

DEBORAH L. PATRICK, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 07-6168 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner has moved to disqualify

the undersigned. As grounds for disqualification she quarrels with this Court’s rulings in her

previous cases. This is not sufficient to allege a personal bias, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 144. 

See United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995) (judge’s

rulings in litigant’s other cases not grounds for disqualification). The declaration therefore is

not legally sufficient under Section 144, and the motion, construed as being made pursuant to

Section 144, will be denied without reference to another judge. See United States v. Scholl, 166

F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999) (judge not required to refer motion to recuse to another judge if

motion is not timely or legally sufficient). 

In addition, the Court has considered the contentions in the motion under 28 U.S.C. §

445. A reasonable person considering the rulings in petitioner’s previous cases would not

conclude that they were the product of bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-

56 (1994) (judicial rulings alone may constitute grounds for appeal, but almost never constitute

Case 3:07-cv-06168-WHA Document 4 Filed 12/07/07 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

a valid basis for a bias or impartiality motion). For these reasons, the motion is also without

merit when construed as being brought pursuant to Section 445. The motion to disqualify

(document number 3 on the docket) is DENIED.

Petitioner had a previous habeas case before this court, C 01-1139 WHA (PR). It was

transferred to the Eastern District of California on June 14, 2001, and given case number CIVF-01-5848 OWW DLB by that court. It was then dismissed by that court for failure to allege

grounds that would entitle petitioner to habeas relief. This petition, therefore, is second or

successive. Second or successive petitions may not be filed unless the petitioner first obtains

from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an order authorizing the district

court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner’s contention that the

provision regarding second or successive petitions applies only to capital cases is incorrect. 

See, e.g., Henderson v. Lampert, 396 F.3d 1049, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b) to non-capital case). 

Petitioner has not obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit allowing her to file this

petition. The petition accordingly is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling if she obtains the

necessary order. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.07\ARI6168.2D.wpd 

Case 3:07-cv-06168-WHA Document 4 Filed 12/07/07 Page 2 of 2