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.

Danny James Cohea v. Cheryl K. Pliler

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


March 21, 2013

DANNY JAMES COHEA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHERYL K. PLILER, WARDEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 25, 2013, the undersigned filed findings and recommendations with respect to defendants' motions for summary judgment and to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Dckt. No. 224. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

Plaintiff's 54-pages of objections are replete with accusations directed at the undersigned. E.g., Dckt. No. 225 at 6 (magistrate judge is "conniving to deprive plaintiff's federal constitutional . . . and . . . statutory rights"), 12 (magistrate judge is conniving with defendants), 13 (magistrate judge should face civil and criminal liability for his conduct in this case, which plaintiff intends to pursue), 13-14 (magistrate judge has acted with "mass corruption" and plaintiff intends to file a Bivens action against him), 14 (magistrate judge has made false statements to relieve defendants of liability), 46 (magistrate judge is a "vile man"). The court construes the objections to contain a request to disqualify the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. A judge should disqualify himself under that section where a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. United States v. Winston, 613 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff's complaints against the undersigned in this case do not demonstrate personal bias or lack of impartiality. In fact, the findings and recommendations include several recommendations in his favor. Plaintiff offers no facts, other than that the undersigned has also made recommendations in favor of defendants, that demonstrate bias.

Accordingly, plaintiff's complaints against the undersigned contained in his March 11, 2013 objections (Dckt. No. 225) are construed as a motion for recusal and are DENIED.

So ordered.

20130321

© 1992-2013 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.