Ziglar v. Scheaffer ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Christerphor Ziglar, No. CV-18-04896-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Jeff Scheaffer, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Christerphor Ziglar’s Motion to Disqualify 17 Judge (Doc. 73) and Motion to Stay (Doc. 75) proceedings until the Motion to Disqualify 18 is resolved. 19 A federal judge shall disqualify himself in a proceeding if his impartiality might 20 reasonably be questioned or if he harbors personal bias or prejudice about a party to the 21 proceeding, possesses personal knowledge of disputed facts in the matter, or otherwise has 22 a qualifying special relationship related to the proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. The statute 23 “must be given the utmost strict construction to safeguard the judiciary from frivolous 24 attacks upon its integrity and to prevent abuse and insure the orderly functioning of the 25 judicial system.” Rademacher v. City of Phoenix, 442 F.Supp. 27, 29 (D. Ariz. 1977) 26 (citations omitted). The movant bears the burden of proving facts sufficient to justify 27 recusal; allegations that are merely conclusory are not legally sufficient. United States v. 28 $292,888.04 U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Vespe, 868 F.2d 1328, 1340 Gd. Cir.1989). A court’s judicial rulings “almost never” constitute a valid 2|| basis for a motion to disqualify. United States v. Liteky, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). 3 Plaintiff argues that disqualification is proper because the Court allegedly ignored 4|| his motions. (Doc. 73.) Even if that were a proper ground for disqualification, Plaintiff is || factually mistaken; the Court addressed his motions by denying them as moot after 6 || dismissing the then-operative complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 30 at 4.) Because Plaintiff has not made a sufficient evidence-based showing of judicial bias, 8 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Judge (Doc. 73) is 9|| DENIED. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Doc. 75) is 11 || DENIED as moot. 12 Dated this 3rd day of December, 2021. 13 14 15 {Z, 17 Uaited States Dictric Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-