Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190913_0012726.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-11-17 20:30:08
Document Index: 437551722

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 144', '§ 455', '§ 144', '§ 455', '§ 144']

FindACase™ | Corral v. Martinez
Corral v. Martinez
CORPORAL MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion to disqualify the undersigned. (ECF No. 6.) The undersigned construes plaintiff's motion to disqualify as a motion for recusal. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff's motion is denied.
Plaintiff's motion is considered pursuant to the standards set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 144 and § 455. Specifically, Title 28 U.S.C. § 144 provides, in part:
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[.]
Title 28 U.S.C. § 455 provides:
Plaintiff alleges that the undersigned should recuse himself from this action because the undersigned denied plaintiff's habeas corpus petition in 2:14-cv-3007. Plaintiff argues that he had strong grounds for his habeas corpus petition and that the undersigned ruled against him with “extreme prejudice.” Plaintiff alleges that the undersigned is “pro law-enforcement.” Plaintiff alleges that the undersigned is not impartial.
The undersigned's previous adverse rulings in 14-3007 are a substantively insufficient basis to support recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”); Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999) (allegations stemming entirely from a district judge's adverse rulings do not provide an adequate basis for recusal). The proper mechanism by which to challenge an adverse ruling is an appeal, not recusal. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555.
Plaintiff's broad and unsupported allegation fails to adequately “state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists....” 28 U.S.C. § 144. As the Supreme Court has observed:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rather, recusal is warranted only by judicial remarks that &ldquo;reveal an opinion that derives from an extrajudicial source [and] ... such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.&rdquo; Id. See also Larson v. Palmateer, 515 F.3d 1057, 1067 (9th Cir. 2008) (“In the absence of any evidence of some extrajudicial source of bias or partiality, neither adverse rulings nor impatient remarks are generally ...