Filed: Jul. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON REVIEW OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . On June 18, 2018, Defendant Daniel Nix filed a Motion seeking recusal of the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik in this matter. Dkt. #87. On June 22, 2018, Judge Lasnik issued an Order declining to recuse himself and, in accordance with this Court's Local Rules, referred that decision to the Chief Judge for review. Dkt. #90; LCR 3(e). On June 29, 2018, the undersigned issue
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON REVIEW OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . On June 18, 2018, Defendant Daniel Nix filed a Motion seeking recusal of the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik in this matter. Dkt. #87. On June 22, 2018, Judge Lasnik issued an Order declining to recuse himself and, in accordance with this Court's Local Rules, referred that decision to the Chief Judge for review. Dkt. #90; LCR 3(e). On June 29, 2018, the undersigned issued..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ON REVIEW OF MOTION FOR RECUSAL
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.
On June 18, 2018, Defendant Daniel Nix filed a Motion seeking recusal of the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik in this matter. Dkt. #87. On June 22, 2018, Judge Lasnik issued an Order declining to recuse himself and, in accordance with this Court's Local Rules, referred that decision to the Chief Judge for review. Dkt. #90; LCR 3(e). On June 29, 2018, the undersigned issued an Order on Review affirming the denial of recusal. Dkt. #94. On July 2, 2018, Defendant Nix filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration re that Order. Dkt #95. Given the nature of this Motion, the undersigned will rule on this Motion as well.
"Motions for reconsideration are disfavored." LCR 7(h)(1). "The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence." Id.
Mr. Nix does not present any new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the Court's attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Instead, Mr. Nix argues that the Court engaged in manifest error by, e.g., failing to consider "the extrajudicial supporting affidavit of Rik Evan Johnson attached to Daniel's reply." Dkt. #95 at 3. Mr. Nix also generally reiterates his prior arguments concerning Judge Lasnik's impartiality. Mr. Nix cites to several sources of law that repeat the standard previously before Judge Lasnik and the undersigned on this issue.
The Court has reviewed Mr. Nix's motion and finds that it does not demonstrate manifest error in the prior ruling. The Court previously considered the entire record and found no evidence to reasonably question Judge Lasnik's impartiality in this matter. The Declaration of Rik Evan Johnson does not present extrajudicial evidence of bias; to the contrary it discusses Mr. Johnson's observations of Judge Lasnik from the bench. See Dkt. #92 at 8-10.
Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt #95) is DENIED.
