Bonds v. U.S., 07cr00072 JAH. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180510937
Visitors: 14
Filed: May 04, 2018
Latest Update: May 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL [Doc. No. 154] JOHN A. HOUSTON , District Judge . Petitioner Johnny Bonds requests this Court recuse itself from hearing Petitioner's pending motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. See Doc. No 154. He contends this Court's impartiality might be reasonably questioned because his ineffective assistance claim "is premised on an error committed by this Court." Motion at 2. Petitioner's only basis for recusal is that
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL [Doc. No. 154] JOHN A. HOUSTON , District Judge . Petitioner Johnny Bonds requests this Court recuse itself from hearing Petitioner's pending motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. See Doc. No 154. He contends this Court's impartiality might be reasonably questioned because his ineffective assistance claim "is premised on an error committed by this Court." Motion at 2. Petitioner's only basis for recusal is that t..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECUSAL [Doc. No. 154]
JOHN A. HOUSTON, District Judge.
Petitioner Johnny Bonds requests this Court recuse itself from hearing Petitioner's pending motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Doc. No 154. He contends this Court's impartiality might be reasonably questioned because his ineffective assistance claim "is premised on an error committed by this Court." Motion at 2. Petitioner's only basis for recusal is that this Court imposed the sentence he now challenges as being improper. Section 2255 requires a motion challenging a sentence as unconstitutional, outside the court's jurisdiction, in excess of the maximum allowed by law or otherwise subject to collateral attack, be heard by the judge who imposed the sentence. See U.S.C. § 2255(a); see also Feldman v. Perrill, 902 F.2d 1445, 1450 (9th Cir. 1990). Petitioner provides no support demonstrating this Court's impartiality might be reasonably questioned.
According, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Petitioner's motion for recusal is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
