Caraffa v. United States of America

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMay 11, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-00774
StatusUnknown

This text of Caraffa v. United States of America (Caraffa v. United States of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Caraffa v. United States of America, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO MDR 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Alfred E. Caraffa, No. CV 20-00774-PHX-MTL (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 United States, et al., 13 Defendants.

14 15 On April 20, 2020, Plaintiff Alfred E. Caraffa, who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a Motion 17 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In an April 23, 2020 Order, the Court denied the deficient 18 Motion to Proceed and gave Plaintiff thirty days to either pay the administrative and filing 19 fees or file a complete Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 20 On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Combine Cases (Doc. 6); Exhibits to 21 Support Civil Action; a First Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) pursuant to § 1983 and Bivens 22 v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); and 23 a second Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9). On May 7, 2020, Plaintiff 24 filed a “Motion to Change Assignment of Judge(s)” (Doc. 11). The Court will deny the 25 Motion to Change Assignment of Judges, grant the second Application to Proceed, deny 26 the Motion to Combine Cases, and dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to 27 amend. 28 . . . . 1 I. Motion to Change Assignment of Judges 2 In his Motion to Change Assignment of Judges, Plaintiff seeks to have this case 3 assigned to a different District Court Judge and Magistrate Judge because (1) the 4 undersigned and United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett “are mentioned by title 5 and name in the cause of action counts in the Amended Complaint” and (2) Plaintiff has 6 sent a letter to the Supreme Court about “claims and statements made by [the undersigned] 7 . . . for his discrimination comments of A.R.S. 31-(A)(6) cited in the orders from [the 8 undersigned].” Plaintiff asserts that he “did not file any kind of civil action dealing with 9 marriage” and that the undersigned’s “comments to see A.R.S. of the Arizona Constitution 10 is unconstitutional and disgraceful for a federal judge who took an oath to uphold the 11 Constitution[] of the United States.” Plaintiff also contends Magistrate Judge Willett 12 “follow[ed] suit with violation of Federal Rules [of] Civil Procedur[]e[]” and this “adds to 13 that disgracefulness.” 14 Motions to disqualify or recuse a federal judge fall under two statutory provisions, 15 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section 144 provides for recusal where a party files a “timely 16 and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal 17 bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party.” The affidavit must 18 state the facts and reasons for the belief that the bias or prejudice exists. 28 U.S.C. § 144. 19 If the judge finds the affidavit timely and legally sufficient, the judge must proceed no 20 further and another judge must be assigned to hear the motion. Id.; United States v. Sibla, 21 624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980). On the other hand, § 455 is self-enforcing on the judge 22 and requires a judge to recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might 23 reasonably be questioned,” where he “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,” 24 or when he is “a party to the proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1), and (b)(5)(i). See 25 also Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867-68. 26 The undersigned must initially determine whether Plaintiff has filed an affidavit that 27 is legally sufficient. See United States v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1978) (“the 28 judge against whom an affidavit of bias is filed may pass on its legal sufficiency”) (citing 1 Berger v. United States, 255 U.S. 22 (1921)). He has not. “An affidavit filed pursuant to 2 [28 U.S.C. § 144] is not legally sufficient unless it specifically alleges facts that fairly 3 support the contention that the judge exhibits bias or prejudice directed toward a party that 4 stems from an extrajudicial source.” Sibla, 624 F.2d at 868 (emphasis added). Plaintiff 5 has not filed an affidavit and his Motion does not contain any facts to support the 6 conclusion that the undersigned has exhibited a bias or prejudice that stems from an 7 extrajudicial source. Thus, the undersigned is not required to assign the recusal request to 8 another judge. See Azhocar, 581 F.2d at 738 (“Only after the legal sufficiency of the 9 affidavit is determined does it become the duty of the judge to ‘proceed no further’ in the 10 case.”). 11 Under §§ 144 and 455, recusal is appropriate where “a reasonable person with 12 knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably 13 be questioned.” Pesnell v. Arsenault, 543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United 14 States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir. 1997)), abrogated on other grounds in 15 Simmons v. Himmelreich, ___ U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 1843 (2016). In nearly all cases, the 16 source of any alleged bias must be extrajudicial. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 17 544-56 (1994). In Liteky, the Supreme Court stated: 18 First, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a 19 bias or partiality motion. In and of themselves . . . , they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; and can only in 20 the rarest circumstances evidence the degree or favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved. 21 Almost invariably, they are proper grounds for appeal, not for recusal. 22 Second, opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior 23 proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion 24 unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Thus, judicial remarks during the 25 course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, 26 counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge. They may do so if they reveal an opinion that 27 derives from an extrajudicial source; and they will do so if they reveal 28 such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible. 1 510 U.S. at 555 (internal citation omitted). See also Pesnell, 543 F.3d at 1044. 2 As previously discussed, Plaintiff does not allege the undersigned has an 3 extrajudicial bias against him. The undersigned cannot conclude that the grounds advanced 4 by Plaintiff would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of all the relevant facts to 5 question the impartiality of the undersigned. 6 Plaintiff has not named the undersigned or Magistrate Judge Willett as a Defendant 7 in this action, but does make numerous allegations against the undersigned and Magistrate 8 Judge Willett in his First Amended Complaint.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bradley v. Fisher
80 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court, 1872)
Berger v. United States
255 U.S. 22 (Supreme Court, 1921)
Pierson v. Ray
386 U.S. 547 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Stump v. Sparkman
435 U.S. 349 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
465 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Hoover v. Ronwin
466 U.S. 558 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Hilton v. Braunskill
481 U.S. 770 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Neitzke v. Williams
490 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer
510 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Liteky v. United States
510 U.S. 540 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Echevarria v. Keisler
505 F.3d 16 (First Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Richard R. Sibla
624 F.2d 864 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Caraffa v. United States of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caraffa-v-united-states-of-america-azd-2020.