Sloan v. United States

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 12, 2022
• Docket: 3:20-cv-08133
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Eli Sloan, No. CV-20-08133-PCT-DLR

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 United States of America,

13 Respondent. 14 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17 60(b)(4) Relief from Judgment, Order, or Proceeding Because Defect in the Integrity of the 18 Federal Habeas Proceeding as Judgment is Void for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Over 19 Counts 3, 4, & 6 (Reopen § 2255)” (Doc. 84). Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 20 In an order issued December 14, 2021, the Court accepted the Report and 21 Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 51), which 22 recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence be denied. 23 (Doc. 68.) In doing so, the Court overruled Plaintiff’s 33 objections and denied his 24 “Motion to Clarify Counts 3 & 4 (and 6) are not Within Indian Country.” On January 12, 25 2022, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Reconsideration from Denial of His § 2255” (Doc. 79). 26 That motion was denied on February 7, 2022. (Doc. 81.) The jurisdictional issues raised 27 in Plaintiff’s current motion were raised in his habeas petition, his objections to the R&R, 28 and his motion for reconsideration. The orders resolving each of these found Plaintiff’s 1 claims to be meritless. Nothing presented in Plaintiff’s latest motion changes the status of 2 jurisdiction. The Court had subject-matter jurisdiction when the case was first tried, when 3 he filed his habeas petition, when he filed his objections to the R&R, when he filed his 4 motion for reconsideration, and today, when the Court denies his latest motion. 5 Plaintiff also requests the Court to recuse, alleging that the Court is biased because 6 “Mr. Sloan has repeatedly made attempts to expose his wrongful conviction and deliberate 7 fabrication of evidence which could and can . . . result in indictments against U.S. 8 prosecutors, FBI agent and judge.” (Doc. 84 at 1.) Recusal decisions are within the trial 9 judge’s sound discretion. United States v. Wilensky, 757 F.2d 594, 599-600 (3d Cir. 1985). 10 There are two federal statutes that control when a federal judge should recuse. The first, 28 11 U.S.C. § 144, provides that a judge shall recuse if the party seeking recusal submits a 12 “timely and sufficient affidavit” which illustrates that the judge has a personal bias or 13 prejudice towards a party. The second, 28 U.S.C. § 455(b), provides that a judge shall 14 recuse under a variety of circumstances, including if the judge has a personal bias or 15 prejudice towards a party. Unlike § 144, however, § 455(b) does not include the 16 requirement of a timely and sufficient affidavit. Furthermore, § 455(a) states that “a judge 17 . . . shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably 18 be questioned.” Thus, there are two reasons for granting a motion for recusal: (1) the judge 19 has a personal bias or prejudice towards a party, §§ 144 and 455(b)(1), or (2) the judge’s 20 impartiality might reasonably be questioned, § 455(a). “The bias must stem from an 21 extrajudicial source and not be based solely on information gained in the course of the 22 proceedings.” Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d 1034, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 1988). 23 “[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. 24 In and of themselves . . . , they cannot possibly show reliance upon an extrajudicial source; 25 and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism 26 required ... when no extrajudicial source is involved.” Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540, 555 27 (1994) (internal citations omitted). 28 Plaintiff’s request for recusal is based on his dissatisfaction with the Court for its || rulings on his various motions. The motion is meritless. There is no evidence of judicial bias. 3 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's “Motion Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) Relief from Judgment, Order, or Proceeding Because Defect in the Integrity of the 5 || Federal Habeas Proceeding as Judgment is Void for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Over || Counts 3, 4, & 6 (Reopen § 2255)” (Doc. 84) is DENIED. 7 Dated this 12th day of April, 20272. 8 9 10 {Z, 11 _- Ae 12 Upited States Dictric Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-