Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alexander v. California Dep't of Corrections

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 6, 2010

JAMES ALEXANDER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion for the undersigned to disqualify himself because plaintiff alleges he is prejudiced toward incarcerated litigants and dismissed claims and defendants without authority.

On January 14, 2009, the court screened plaintiff's amended complaint and provided plaintiff with information as to what was required to amend his complaint to state a cognizable civil rights claim. Plaintiff's second amended complaint alleged myriad violations of his constitutional rights by 28 different defendants. In the motion to disqualify, plaintiff recites the procedural history of this case and describes the orders and recommendations issued by this court. Plaintiff claims that the court has made flawed rulings, incorrectly applied the law, and exceeded his authority.

A judge must disqualify him or herself where there is bias or prejudice for or against a party. Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 830 F.2d 1513, 1523-24 (9th Cir. 1987). The bias must arise from an extra-judicial source and cannot be based solely on information gained in the course of the proceedings. Id., at 1524, In re Corey, 892 F.2d 829, 839 (9th Cir. 1989). A judge's rulings while presiding over a case do not constitute extra-judicial conduct. Nilsson, et al., v. Louisiana Hydrolec, 854 F.2d 1538, 1548 (9th Cir. 1988).

Plaintiff indicates in his motion that he disagrees with the court's rulings in his case. This is not sufficient to support a motion to disqualify. Plaintiff's interpretation of the law may not harmonize with the court's. However, displeasure at the rulings obtained in an action is not adequate grounds to support disqualification of a judge. Thus, plaintiff's request will be denied.

On December 28, 2009, plaintiff also filed a motion to renew the stay pending the disposition of plaintiff's motions to disqualify and to vacate. This court does not find good cause to continue the stay of this action at this time. Thus, plaintiff's motion to renew the stay will be denied and the stay is lifted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's December 28, 2009 request to disqualify the magistrate judge for cause is denied. (Docket No. 24.)

2. Plaintiff's December 28, 2009 motion to renew the stay is denied. (Docket No. 26.)

3. The stay of this action is lifted.

20100106

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.