Edwards v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, 15-cv-05778-VC. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180319556
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Re: Dkt. No. 117 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . The plaintiff's motion to disqualify is denied. Mr. Benjamin's allegations would not persuade a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts and proceedings of this case that the Court's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882 , 891-92 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849 , 853 n.6 (9th Cir. 1982) ("Parties canno
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY Re: Dkt. No. 117 VINCE CHHABRIA , District Judge . The plaintiff's motion to disqualify is denied. Mr. Benjamin's allegations would not persuade a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts and proceedings of this case that the Court's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882 , 891-92 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849 , 853 n.6 (9th Cir. 1982) ("Parties cannot..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
Re: Dkt. No. 117
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
The plaintiff's motion to disqualify is denied. Mr. Benjamin's allegations would not persuade a reasonable person with knowledge of the facts and proceedings of this case that the Court's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. See United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891-92 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 853 n.6 (9th Cir. 1982) ("Parties cannot attack a judge's impartiality on the basis of information and beliefs acquired while acting in his or her judicial capacity."). Moreover, remarks made during the course of judicial proceedings almost never constitute a valid basis for recusal on their own. United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 913-14 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994). In this case, the remarks made by the Court about Mr. Benjamin merely reflect a belief by the Court that Mr. Benjamin has performed consistently poorly as a lawyer throughout the case and has engaged in misconduct. A judge's belief that a lawyer has performed poorly and engaged in misconduct is not a reason for the judge to be disqualified. Therefore, recusal is not warranted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 or 455. Cf. United States v. Caramadre, 807 F.3d 359, 374-75 (1st Cir. 2015); United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
