Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02712/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02712-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rebecca Jean Burt
Plaintiff
Goodwill Industries of Central Arizona
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rebecca Jean Burt,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Goodwill Industries of Central Arizona,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-2712-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for substitution of Judge. As a result of that

motion, this Court issued the following order:

Plaintiff has filed a “motion for substitution of judge with affidavit.”

Doc. 40. Although the title says “with affidavit” the document does not

actually contain an affidavit. Further, the document starts at paragraph 3, so

it is possible some pages were not included.

28 U.S.C. § 144 applies when a party to a proceeding believes that the

district judge “has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor

of any adverse party[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 144. “Section 144 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 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. ...

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

pursuant to section 144, the district judge “shall proceed no further therein, but

another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.” Id.; Sibla, 624 F.2d

at 867. However, “if the motion and affidavit required by section 144 [are] not

Case 2:12-cv-02712-JAT Document 48 Filed 08/26/14 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

presented to the judge, no relief under section 144 is available.” Sibla, 624

F.2d at 868.

As mentioned above, in this case Plaintiff failed to attach an affidavit.

Further, Plaintiff failed to show why this motion was not filed within ten days

of the case being assigned to the undersigned. The Court will give Plaintiff ten

days to supplement her motion to cure these deficiencies. If Plaintiff fails to

file the supplement, or files a supplement that does not cure the deficiencies,

the motion will be denied as procedurally defective.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff has leave to file a supplement to her

motion (Doc. 40) within 10 days. Defendant’s deadline to respond shall run

from the filing of the supplement, if any.

Doc. 42.

Thereafter, Plaintiff filed another motion for substitution of Judge. Doc. 43. As

Defendant points out in its response (Doc. 47), the motion is still procedurally defective.

Accordingly, it will be denied for this reason. Alternatively, it is also untimely. The Court

finds that Plaintiff’s justifications do not excuse the untimeliness. Thus, the motion is denied

for this alternative reason. 

Finally, the Court has considered its duties under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and finds that

recusal is not required. For all of the foregoing reasons, the motion for substitution of judge

will be denied.

While this motion was pending, Defendant moved for summary judgment. Doc. 45.

The time for Plaintiff to respond to the motion has expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a

response. Nothing about the pendency of the motion for substitution of judge motion gave

Plaintiff an extension of time to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Nonetheless,

out of an abundance of caution that Plaintiff may have mistakenly believed that she did not

have to respond to the motion for summary judgment while the motion for substitution of

judge was pending, the Court will give Plaintiff a brief extension of this expired deadline.

If Plaintiff fails to respond within this new deadline, the Court will dismiss this case for

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Based on the foregoing,

Case 2:12-cv-02712-JAT Document 48 Filed 08/26/14 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for substitution of judge (Doc. 40 as supplemented

by Doc. 43) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant’s pending

motion for summary judgment (Doc. 45) by September 5, 2014.

DATED this 26th day of August, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-02712-JAT Document 48 Filed 08/26/14 Page 3 of 3