Davis v. Villagrana et al
Filing
17
ORDER DENYING 16 Motion for Change of Venue and DENYING Motion for Recusal signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/30/2011. (Sant Agata, S)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
FRANCIS W. DAVIS,
10
11
12
13
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01897-AWI-SKO PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CHANGE
OF VENUE AND DENYING MOTION FOR
RECUSAL
v.
T. VILLAGRANA,
(Doc. 16)
Defendant.
/
14
15
Plaintiff Francis W. Davis, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
16
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 29, 2009. Pursuant to the Court’s order
17
filed on June 20, 2011, this action is proceeding against Defendant Villagrana for retaliation, in
18
violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.
19
On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a change of venue to the Northern District
20
of California. Plaintiff’s request arises from his disagreement with the Court’s June 20 screening
21
order, which he contends was prejudicial and evidences the Court’s inability to be fair and impartial.1
22
The events at issue in this action occurred at the California Substance Abuse Treatment
23
Facility in Corcoran, California, and Defendant Villagrana is employed there. (Doc. 1.) Thus, this
24
action was initiated in the proper division and district, and Plaintiff’s disagreement with the Court’s
25
ruling does not constitute good cause to transfer this action to another district with no connection to
26
27
28
1
The Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s complaint and issued findings and recommendations on
February 1, 2011. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 11.) Plaintiff filed an objection on February 25, 2011, and the
undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations in full on June 20, 2011, which resulted in the dismissal of
all claims and parties except for the retaliation claim proceeding against Defendant Villagrana. (Docs. 12, 14.)
1
1
the events or the parties. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1404(a); Local Rule 120(d). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
2
motion is denied.
3
To the extent that Plaintiff’s motion is construed as a motion seeking recusal of the
4
undersigned, that motion is also denied. A judge must disqualify himself if “his impartiality might
5
be reasonably questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if “he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning
6
a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C.
7
§ 455(b)(1). “[J]udicial rulings or information acquired by the court in its judicial capacity will
8
rarely support recusal.” United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Litkey
9
v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)).
10
The objective test for determining whether recusal is required is whether a reasonable person
11
with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be
12
questioned. Johnson, 610 F.3d at 1147 (quotation marks and citation omitted); Pesnell v. Arsenault,
13
543 F.3d 1038. 1043 (9th Cir. 2008). “Adverse findings do not equate to bias,” Johnson, 610 F.3d
14
at 1147, and in this instance, Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s ruling against him, which does not
15
support recusal.
16
17
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion for a change of venue and for recusal of
the undersigned, filed June 27, 2011, is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated:
0m8i78
June 30, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
