Sells, Jr. v. MCDANIEL
Filing
152
ORDER denying 145 Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal of District Judge. See order re specifics. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/6/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
WILLIAM CATO SELLS, JR., Plaintiff, vs. ELDON K. McDANIEL, et al., Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
3:06-cv-00023-LRH-VPC MINUTE ORDER March 6, 2009
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LARRY R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: ROSEMARIE MILLER COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to recuse Judge Larry R. Hicks (#145) is DENIED. Recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Under section 144, a party seeking recusal must set forth, in an affidavit, facts and reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists. See 28 U.S.C. § 144. The standard for recusal under sections 144 and 455 is "whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986). The alleged prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source; a judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal. Id. The challenged judge should rule on the legal sufficiency of the recusal motion in the first instance. Id. at 940. The judge has a duty not to recuse when there is no sound reason to do so. Plaintiff's motion to recuse is based solely upon conclusory beliefs and unsupported allegations and is without merit. Plaintiff is also mistaken that Joshua Hicks is the son of Judge Hicks. Dissatisfaction with the granting of an extension of time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#141) is not sufficient cause for recusal. IT IS SO ORDERED. LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK By: /s/ Deputy Clerk REPORTER: NONE APPEARING NONE APPEARING NONE APPEARING
]]>
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?
