Source: http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180711_0001612.DMT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:13:21+00:00

Document:
STATE OF MONTANA WARDENS, et al., Defendants.
The following motions are pending: Plaintiff Lionel Ellison's motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 46); Mr. Ellison's Motion for Disqualification of Judge (Doc. 48); Mr. Ellison's Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 49); Mr. Ellison's Motion for Copies (Doc. 50); Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Disclosure Statement (Doc. 59); and Defendants' Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and to Request Plaintiff to file Disclosure statement.
(4) immediately upon filing of the motion, be e-mailed in a word processing format to each party against whom summary judgment is sought.
Local Rule 56.1(a). Mr. Ellison has not filed a Statement of Undisputed Facts in accordance with this rule.
Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied without prejudice and subject to renewal for failure to file a statement of undisputed facts.
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. [... The party's affidavit] shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.
28 U.S.C. § 144. The certificate of good faith required under this section must be provided by a member of the bar, or the movant's counsel of record. See Robinson v. Gregory, 929 F.Supp. 334, 337-38 (S.D. Ind. 1996). Consequently, a pro se litigant who has not provided a certificate of good faith from a member of the bar may not employ the disqualification procedures set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 144. Id.; see also Jimena v. UBS AG Bank, 2010 WL 2650714, *3 (E.D. Cal. 2010); United States v. Briggs, 2007 WL 1364682, *1 (D. Idaho 2007). Mr. Ellison has not submitted a certificate of counsel as required by § 144. Thus, Mr. Ellison cannot pursue recusal under this section.

References: § 144
 v. 
 § 144
 v. 
 v. 
 § 144