(HC) Martin v. Pogue ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED ANDREW MARTIN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01622-JLT-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY 13 v. (ECF No. 18) 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 On January 26, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify the undersigned. (ECF No. 20 18). A judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 21 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A judge shall also disqualify himself if he has “personal knowledge of 22 disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). The decision 23 regarding disqualification is made by the judge whose impartiality is at issue. Bernard v. Coyne, 24 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994). Opinions formed during the course of judicial proceedings 25 “almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion” and can only do so “in the 26 rarest circumstances” where the opinions reveal “such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism 27 as to make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56 (1994). “The test is ‘whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the 1 | judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794, 2 | 797 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir.1997)). 3 | “Frivolous and improperly based suggestions that a judge recuse should be firmly declined.” 4 | Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 1583 (9th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). 5 Here, the grounds for Petitioner’s motion for disqualification are the undersigned’s 6 | decisions in this matter denying appointment of counsel and a private investigator because 7 | discovery had not been authorized and Petitioner had not demonstrated a likelihood of success 8 | such that the interests of justice required appointment of counsel at that time. Petitioner contends 9 | that the undersigned “sides with the prisons even when the prisons are in the wrong” and “should 10 | be removed for bias and prejudice.” (ECF No. 18 at 1). 11 The undersigned is not concerned with his ability to remain impartial and has no personal 12 | knowledge of the disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding. There is no evidence of 13 | any impropriety in the record and the undersigned’s orders denying appointment of counsel 14 | without prejudice do not even suggest such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism that might 15 | warrant recusal. See Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555-56. Therefore, the undersigned will not recuse 16 | himself. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to disqualify (ECF No. 18 | 18) is DENIED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee 21 | Dated: _ January 28, 2022 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28