Ryan v. County of Imperial
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Joseph Ryan moved for the district judge's recusal, arguing that the judge's prior orders dismissing the complaint demonstrated bias and dishonesty. The court denied the motion, holding that disagreement with judicial rulings does not constitute the extrajudicial bias required for recusal.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Recusal Denied“Because Plaintiff does not point to any facts that would lead one to reasonably question the undersigned’s impartiality, his motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the due process clause is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the legal standard that judicial rulings alone, even if erroneous or perceived as biased, do not constitute the 'extrajudicial source' of bias required for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455. The plaintiff's argument that the judge was 'conspiring' based solely on the content of the orders is legally insufficient to meet the high bar for recusal. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the Due Process Clause, specifically citing Ninth Circuit precedent (Leslie and Toth) that establishes that judicial rulings alone are not an extrajudicial source of bias. The court accurately applies this standard to the plaintiff's motion, which relies exclusively on the content of prior orders. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the legal deficiency in the plaintiff's argument.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Ryan et al., Case No.: 21cv1076-JO-LR 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF 13 v. JOSEPH RYAN’S MOTION FOR RECUSAL 14 County of Imperial et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff Joseph Ryan filed a motion for Judge Ohta’s recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 455 and the Due Process clause of the Constitution. Dkt. 140 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff bases 22 the recusal motion on the “content of the orders issued by Judge Ohta on September 29, 23 2022.” Id. at 13. He “does not allege that the honorable Judge has engaged in any 24 misconduct that might defile the Court’s processes or interfere with its due administration 25 of matters.” Id. Instead, Plaintiff alleges only that a reasonable observer would conclude 26 from the Court’s orders dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint that the undersigned is conspiring 27 with Defendants against Plaintiffs. 28 1 The Supreme Court has recognized that due process confers the right to an impartial 2 || and disinterested judge. See Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980). A judge 3 || should recuse herself when “the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally 4 tolerable.” Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975). 28 U.S.C. § 455 further instructs 5 ||that a federal judge must recuse herself from any proceeding in which her “impartiality 6 ||might reasonably be questioned” or if she has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a 7 || party. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 455 “require recusal only if the 8 || bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made 9 || during the course of the proceeding.” Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 F.3d 1152, 1160 (9th Cir. 10 || 1999) (quoting Toth v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 862 F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988)). 11 Aside from his disagreement with the Court’s orders, Plaintiff has not identified any 12 || grounds for a reasonable person to question the undersigned’s bias, personal prejudice, or 13 partiality. Instead, Plaintiff's arguments for recusal hinge solely on the Court’s adverse 14 rulings; from these, he argues, “[a]n objective observer would have to conclude that—on 15 || the face—the record made by Judge Jinsook Ohta in the three [orders] issued on September 16 2022, is so replete with outright misrepresentations of Plaintiff's facts, and facts 17 || presented grossly without candor by the Judge, that any objective observer might conclude 18 || that it is the product of a wholly dishonest, sneaky Judge acting for corrupt reasons.” Mot. 19 22. This logic is not sufficient to demonstrate that this judge has a bias or prejudice 20 stemming from an extrajudicial source. Because Plaintiff does not point to any facts that 21 would lead one to reasonably question the undersigned’s impartiality, his motion for 22 ||recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 and the due process clause is DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: December 7, 2022 25 26 Ho orgbfe Tinsook Ohta 27 United States District Judge 28