Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03879/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03879-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Duffy
Respondent
David S. Perryman
Petitioner

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID S. PERRYMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

BRIAN DUFFY, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-03879-YGR (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; AND 

ADDRESSING PENDING MOTIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Dkts. 1, 4. 

He has also filed a motion for recusal and a “Request for Guardian Ad Litem.” Dkts. 5, 7.

Petitioner has filed a previous petition for a writ of habeas corpus with this Court, 

challenging the same conviction and sentence. See Case No. C 13-0311 YGR (PR). The Court 

denied the first petition on the merits.

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION FOR RECUSAL

Petitioner has filed a motion for mandatory disqualification or recusal of this Court, 

presumably pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455. Petitioner claims that this Court erred in denying 

his first habeas petition in Case No. C 13-0311 YGR (PR). Dkt. 5 at 2. He also makes a 

conclusory allegation that this Court is “prejudiced against [him].” Id.

28 U.S.C. § 144 provides for recusal where a party files a timely and sufficient affidavit 

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. The affidavit must state the facts and reasons for such belief. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 144. A judge finding the 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). If the judge finds the affidavits are not legally sufficient, 

recusal is simply denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 144; United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 

Case 4:15-cv-03879-YGR Document 8 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995) (affidavit inadequate when based on mere conclusory allegations). 

A party may file only one such affidavit in each case. See 28 U.S.C. § 144. A judge is not 

required to refer a motion to recuse to another judge if the motion is neither timely nor legally 

sufficient. See United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Meanwhile, 28 U.S.C. § 455 provides broader grounds for disqualification, but does not 

specify the procedure used and is self-enforcing on the part of the judge. It requires a judge to 

disqualify herself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 455(a); see also Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) 

(recusal is appropriate where “reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude 

that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned”). As a federal judge is presumed to 

be impartial, a substantial burden is imposed on the party claiming bias or prejudice to show that 

this is not the case. See United States v. Zagari, 419 F. Supp. 494, 506 n.30 (N.D. Cal. 1976). 

Here, the Court finds Petitioner’s affidavit in support of the motion to recuse this Court is 

not legally sufficient. Petitioner’s argument claiming prejudice stems from the Court’s previous 

rulings denying his habeas petition. The Court’s adverse rulings are not an adequate basis for 

recusal. Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, Petitioner’s motion 

for recusal is DENIED. Dkt. 5. 

II. SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE PETITION

The Court finds the present petition is a second or successive petition attacking the same 

conviction and sentence as Petitioner’s prior federal habeas petition. A second or successive 

petition containing new claims may not be filed in the district court unless Petitioner first obtains 

from the United States Court of Appeals an order authorizing the district court to consider the 

petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner has not done so. Accordingly, this petition is 

DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a new habeas action if Petitioner obtains the necessary 

order.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Petitioner’s motion for recusal is DENIED. Dkt. 5. 

Case 4:15-cv-03879-YGR Document 8 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2. The petition is DISMISSED as successive pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 

3. Based solely on Petitioner’s lack of financial resources, Petitioner’s application to 

proceed IFP is GRANTED. Dkt. 4

4. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, terminate all remaining pending 

motions as moot, including his “Request for Guardian Ad Litem” (Dkt. 7), and close the file.

5. This Order terminates Docket Nos. 4, 5 and 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

January 13, 2016

Case 4:15-cv-03879-YGR Document 8 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 3