(HC) Kobel v. Thompson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRANCISCO AURTURO KOBEL, No. 2: 21-cv-0841 JAM KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PAUL THOMPSON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding with an application for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On December 21, 2021, the undersigned granted respondent’s 19 motion to dismiss and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 15, 16.) 20 On January 7, 2021, petitioner filed a motion for evidentiary hearing and reconsideration 21 of the December 21, 2021 order. (ECF No. 17.) In the January 7, 2021 motion, petitioner 22 contends that he is “uncomfortable” with the undersigned “not recusing himself…” (Id. at 2.) 23 Petitioner suggests that the undersigned is biased against petitioner based on his former 24 employment in the Department of Justice. (Id.) 25 The undersigned construes petitioner’s January 7, 2021 motion to contain a request for 26 recusal of the undersigned. 27 The applicable recusal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 455, provides that “[a]ny justice, judge, or 28 magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his 1 impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A judge shall also disqualify 2 himself or herself when the judge has “a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party....” Id., 3 455(b)(1). The standard for determining whether impartiality might be reasonably questioned is 4 “whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s 5 impartiality might be questioned.” United States v. Holland, 519 F.2d 909, 913 (9th Cir. 2008). 6 The request for recusal appears to be predicated on the December 21, 2021 order granting 7 respondent’s motion to dismiss. Adverse rulings, standing alone, are not a sufficient basis for 8 recusal. Litekey v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost 9 never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion .... Almost invariably, they are proper 10 grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”). Moreover, the undersigned has no bias against petitioner 11 based on his former employment. Accordingly, the request for recusal is denied. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for recusal of the 13 undersigned, contained in the January 7, 2021 request for reconsideration, is denied. 14 15 Dated: February 11, 2022 /s/ John A. Mendez 16 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28