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.

James W. Brammer v. James A. Yates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 13, 2011

JAMES W. BRAMMER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES A. YATES, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND MOTION FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A DISTRICT JUDGE, WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. 51)

James W. Brammer ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 17, 2007, Plaintiff filed his original complaint. (Doc. 1). On August 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking recusal of the undersigned and reassignment of this action to a district judge. (Doc. 50).

Disqualification is required if a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or if the judge has a personal bias or prejudice for or against a party. Hasbrouck v. Texaco, Inc., 842 F.2d 1034, 1045 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), 455(b)(1)), aff'd, 496 U.S. 543, 110 S.Ct. 2535 (1990). "The bias must stem from an extra-judicial source and not be based solely on information gained in the course of the proceedings." Id. (citing In re Beverly Hills Bancorp, 752 F.2d 1334, 1341 (9th Cir. 1984)). Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's judicial rulings in this case does not constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)).

Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing, and his motion for recusal of the undersigned is denied.

Further, this action was assigned to the undersigned pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, and Plaintiff did not exercise his right to request reassignment to a district judge at the initiation of this action. Appendix A(k)(3). Instead, Plaintiff consented to United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on September 26, 2007. Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's orders provides no basis for the withdrawal of his earlier consent, and this case will remain assigned to the undersigned. Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff 's motion for reassignment to a district judge is denied.

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's motion, filed August 4, 2011, is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20111013

© 1992-2011 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.