(PC) Beeson v. Warden ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAYLOR A. BEESON, No. 2:23-cv-1621 DJC CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, F.C.I. HERLONG, et. al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 20, 2024, plaintiff filed a document which the court construes, in part, as a 18 request that the undersigned recuse. 19 I. Legal Standard: 20 Federal law allows a judge to recuse from a matter based on a question of partiality: 21 Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might 22 reasonably be questioned. [¶] He shall also disqualify himself . . . [¶] [w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or 23 personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding . . . . 24 25 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). 26 A party may seek recusal of a judge based on bias or prejudice: 27 Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the 28 matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him 1 or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding. 2 [¶] The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists . . . . 3 4 28 U.S.C. § 144. 5 Relief under Section 144 is conditioned upon the filing of a timely and legally sufficient 6 affidavit. A judge who finds the affidavit legally sufficient must proceed no further under Section 7 144 and must assign a different judge to hear the matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 144; United States v. 8 Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). Nevertheless, where the affidavit lacks sufficiency, the 9 judge at whom the motion is directed can determine the matter and deny recusal. See United 10 States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 11 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that only after determining the legal sufficiency of a 12 Section 144 affidavit is a judge obligated to reassign decision on merits to another judge)); United 13 States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1995) (if the affidavit is 14 legally insufficient, then recusal can be denied). 15 The standard for legal sufficiency under Sections 144 and 455 is “‘whether a reasonable 16 person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might 17 reasonably be questioned.’” Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (quoting 18 United States v. Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983)); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 19 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986). To provide adequate grounds for recusal, the prejudice must result from 20 an extrajudicial source. Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868-89. A judge’s previous adverse ruling alone is not 21 sufficient for recusal. Nelson, 718 F.2d at 321. 22 II. Analysis 23 To the extent plaintiff alleges bias, prejudice, and impartiality based on previous rulings 24 against plaintiff, the motion for recusal is substantially insufficient. The motion fails to allege 25 facts to support a contention that the undersigned has exhibited bias or prejudice directed towards 26 plaintiff from an extrajudicial source. Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868; see Liteky v. United States, 510 27 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or 28 partiality motion.”); id. (“In and of themselves . . . [judicial rulings] cannot possibly show 1 | reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the 2 || degree of favoritism or antagonism required . .. when no extrajudicial source is involved. Almost 3 || invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal.”); Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 4 } 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[Plaintiff’s] allegations stem entirely from the district judge’s 5 || adverse rulings. That is not an adequate basis for recusal.”). 6 | TI. Conclusion 7 Because plaintiff fails to identify any adequate basis for recusal, and because there is no 8 | basis to reasonably question the undersigned’s impartiality, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 9 | plaintiff's request for recusal (ECF No. 28) is denied. 10 | Dated: November 22, 2024 / ae □□ / a Ly a i CAROLYN K DELANEY 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 1S | 4 16 bees 1621 .rec 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28