Pelaske v. Khoronov et al
Filing
11
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/10/11 denying 10 Motion for recusal of the undersigned. (Plummer, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JONOTHAN EDWIN PELASKE,
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
No. 2: 11-cv-0757 KJM KJN P
vs.
MICHAEL KHORONOV, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
ORDER
/
16
On June 7, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to recuse the undersigned from this
17
action. Plaintiff contends that the undersigned did not properly screen his first amended
18
complaint.
19
A judge is required to disqualify himself if his impartiality might reasonably be
20
questioned, 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), or if he has a personal bias or prejudice against a party, 28
21
U.S.C. § 455(b)(1). Remarks made during the course of a judicial proceeding that are critical or
22
hostile to a party or his case ordinarily will not support a bias or partiality claim unless they
23
reveal an extrajudicial source for the opinion, or “such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism
24
as to make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994.) The
25
decision regarding disqualification is made by the judge whose impartiality is at issue. Bernard
26
v. Coyne, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994).
1
1
Where the source of alleged bias or prejudice is a judicial proceeding, plaintiff
2
must show a disposition on the part of the judge that “is so extreme as to display clear inability to
3
render fair judgment.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 541. “Opinions formed by the judge on the basis of
4
facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior
5
proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-
6
seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” Id. at 555. Bias is
7
not found where the judge has expressed anger or dissatisfaction or annoyance that are within the
8
bounds of reasonable behavior. Id.
9
The undersigned’s actions in this case do not support disqualification. The
10
actions taken were an appropriate response to filings. The undersigned’s rulings do not reflect an
11
extreme disposition or deep-seated antagonism. They do not reflect animosity, partiality, or
12
inability to render a fair judgment in the instant action. They do not indicate bias, personal or
13
otherwise, or prejudice, personal or otherwise.
14
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for recusal of the
15
undersigned (Dkt. No. 10) is denied.
16
DATED: June 10, 2011
17
18
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
pel757.rec
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?
