Thornton v. Daly City

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 CURTIS THORNTON, Case No. 19-cv-07638-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 51, 52 10 DALY CITY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 On March 17, 2021, Plaintiff Curtis Thornton (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to disqualify the 14 undersigned judge, see Dkt. No. 51, followed by an amended motion to disqualify, see Dkt. No. 52 15 (“Mot.”). The motion to disqualify is DENIED. 16 Plaintiff moves to recuse the undersigned based on: 17 the May 31st, 1870 Act to enforce the Right of Citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union and for other 18 Purposes, 18 U.S. Code § 2383 (Insurrection and Rebellion), the April 15th, 1861, Presidential Proclamation declaring insurrection and 19 rebellion against US law, 18 USC 1590 (Trafficking in Forced Labor), the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. 20 Mot. at 1.1 21 Motions to disqualify, or recuse, a judge fall under two statutory provisions, 28 U.S.C. § 22 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455. Section 144 requires a party seeking recusal to file a timely and 23 sufficient affidavit averring that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias 24 or prejudice either against the party or in favor of an adverse party, and setting forth the facts and 25 reasons for such belief. See 28 U.S.C. § 144. Similarly, § 455 requires a judge to disqualify 26 27 1 himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 2 455(a), including where the judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal 3 knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” id. § 455 (b)(1). Section 455 4 includes additional circumstances in which a judge must disqualify himself, none of which are 5 relevant to the bases Plaintiff lists. See id. § 455 (b)(2)-(5). 6 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion fails as a matter of law. Beyond listing statutes and 7 constitutional amendments, Plaintiff makes no specific allegations in support of the request for 8 disqualification. Plaintiff fails to establish any basis, under either § 144 or § 455, on which the 9 Court’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. “Ordinarily, the alleged bias must stem from 10 an ‘extrajudicial source.’ ” United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1454 (9th Cir. 1997) 11 (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-56 (1994)). Judicial rulings may constitute 12 grounds for an eventual appeal, but are not a valid basis for a motion for recusal. See Liteky, 510 13 U.S. at 555-56; see also Mayes v. Leipziger, 729 F.2d 605, 607 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A judge’s 14 previous adverse ruling alone is not sufficient bias.”); McCoy v. Stronach, No. 15 112CV000983AWISABPC, 2021 WL 147989, at *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2021) (denying 16 plaintiff’s motion for disqualification based on adverse ruling on motion). 17 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify. This order terminates 18 Dkt. Nos. 51 and 52. 19 21 Dat e d : 3/18/2021 22 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27