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.

Kenneth Alan Sierra v. Moon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 9, 2012

KENNETH ALAN SIERRA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MOON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND/OR FOR REASSIGNMENT AND FOR INVESTIGATION OF CHANNELING OF CASES TO SELECTIVE JUDGES, WITH PREJUDICE

On July 22, 2011, Plaintiff Kenneth Sierra, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

On August 24, 2011, Plaintiff declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 8.) On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking recusal of the undersigned and/or reassignment of this action to the Sacramento Division and an investigation of channeling Plaintiff's actions before selective judges. (ECF No. 13.)

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, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 455(a), 455(b)(1)). "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 expressed disagreement with the Court's judicial rulings in this case, and other cases, and any appeal therefrom, does not constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. In re Focus Media, Inc., 378 F.3d 916, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing, and his motion for recusal of the undersigned, and re-assignment, is denied.

Plaintiff has not made any factual showing in support of an intra-district transfer to the Sacramento Division. Plaintiff provides no factual basis for transfer. Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, Rule 120. Plaintiff 's motion for intra-district transfer is denied.

This action was assigned to the undersigned pursuant to Appendix A(k)(3) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff has declined Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Plaintiff has not factually supported his request for an investigation. Plaintiff's request for an investigation of cases being channeled to selected judges is denied.

For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's motion, filed October 25, 2011, is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120209

© 1992-2012 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.