welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, N.D. California
  4. 2017
  5. U.S. v. Bhambra, 09-cr-01088-EMC-1. (2017)

U.S. v. Bhambra, 09-cr-01088-EMC-1. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20171027e34 Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 26, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 26, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION Docket No. 257 EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . At the October 25, 2017 hearing, Defendant Bhambra notified the Court that he had just filed a request for the undersigned's recusal. The grounds asserted were disagreement with the undersigned's prior rulings including refusal to vacate Bhambra's conviction (grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14), Bhambra's subjective opinions about the undersigned (ground 10), and conclusory alle
More

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION

Docket No. 257

At the October 25, 2017 hearing, Defendant Bhambra notified the Court that he had just filed a request for the undersigned's recusal. The grounds asserted were disagreement with the undersigned's prior rulings including refusal to vacate Bhambra's conviction (grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14), Bhambra's subjective opinions about the undersigned (ground 10), and conclusory allegations that the undersigned has a conflict of interest or bias or prejudice towards Defendant (grounds 5, 8). These allegations are not distinguishable from Bhambra's first request for disqualification, which was denied. See Docket Nos. 241-242. Accordingly, they are also insufficient as a matter of law here to require referral to another judge under 28 U.S.C. § 144, or recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455.1 His request is DENIED.

This order disposes of Docket No. 257.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. See U.S. v. Azhocar, 581 F.2d 735, 738 (9th Cir. 1978) (judge whose recusal is requested under 28 U.S.C. § 144 must pass upon legal sufficiency of affidavit); In re Bernard, 31 F.3d 842, 843 (9th Cir. 1994) (judge whose recusal is requested under 28 U.S.C. § 455 must decide it). See also United States v. Merkt, 794 F.2d 950, 960, n.9 (5th Cir. 1986) (affidavit legally sufficient only if the facts asserted are "material and stated with particularity," "would convince a reasonable person that bias exists," and "show that the bias is personal, rather than judicial, in nature"); City of Cleveland v. Krupansky, 619 F.2d 576, 578 (6th Cir. 1980) ("Assertions merely of a conclusionary nature are not enough nor are opinions or rumors."); King v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 16 F.3d 992, 993 (9th Cir. 1994) ("Recusal ordinarily is required only if the bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source, and not from a judge's conduct or rulings during the course of judicial proceedings." (quotation and citation omitted)).
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
09-cr-01088-EMC-1.
Counsels
  • Cynthia Lewis Stier
  • Katherine Burke Dowling
  • Natalie Kay Wight
Similar Cases

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer