Filed: Sep. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. 455 [Re: ECF 145] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff Greg Elofson has filed a "Motion for Recusal under 28 U.S.C. 455," requesting that the undersigned disqualify herself from this case. See Motion for Recusal, ECF 145. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED for the reasons discussed below. Plaintiff brings his motion under 28 U.S.C. 455(a), which provides that: "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. 455 [Re: ECF 145] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . Plaintiff Greg Elofson has filed a "Motion for Recusal under 28 U.S.C. 455," requesting that the undersigned disqualify herself from this case. See Motion for Recusal, ECF 145. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED for the reasons discussed below. Plaintiff brings his motion under 28 U.S.C. 455(a), which provides that: "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United S..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 455
[Re: ECF 145]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff Greg Elofson has filed a "Motion for Recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455," requesting that the undersigned disqualify herself from this case. See Motion for Recusal, ECF 145. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED for the reasons discussed below.
Plaintiff brings his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), which provides that: "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). That provision "require[s] recusal only if the bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding." Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988). The judge as to whom disqualification is sought properly may determine that the motion is legally insufficient rather than referring the motion to another judge for disposition. Id.
Plaintiff's motion is based on a statement made by the undersigned during the September 8, 2016 hearing on six motions to dismiss. See Motion for Recusal at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that the undersigned stated that she would "never overturn a state court decision." Id. Plaintiff claims that the statement requires recusal because "the overturning of probate court judgments made in Maricopa County, Arizona" is "[a]bsolutely core" to his case. Id.
The statement to which Plaintiff refers was made in the context of explaining that, in the undersigned's view, any of Plaintiff's claims seeking to void the Arizona courts' orders, including orders relating to the conservatorship of Plaintiffs' father, would be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1 The statement, which was made during the course of a judicial proceeding and which reflects the undersigned's view of the law, does not provide a basis for recusal under § 455(a), as it does not demonstrate "bias or prejudice stem[ming] from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding." Toth, 862 F.2d at 1388.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for recusal is DENIED.2
