Stine v. Lappin

Full title: MIKEAL GLENN STINE, and RAYMOND OECHSLE, Plaintiffs, v. HARLEY LAPPIN…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Sep 18, 2008

Civil Action No. 08-cv-00164-WYD-KLM (D. Colo. Sep. 18, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 08-cv-00164-WYD-KLM.

September 18, 2008

ORDER

KRISTEN MIX, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Magistrate Mix [Docket No. 82; Filed September 11, 2008] (the "Motion"). The Court has reviewed the Motion, the entire case file and applicable case law and is sufficiently advised in the premises. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED, as set forth below.

Plaintiff requests that I recuse myself from his case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a Magistrate Judge shall disqualify herself "in any proceeding in which [her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Plaintiff specifically takes issue with my prior rulings against him. Motion [#82] at 2-7. However,

judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. In and of themselves, ( i.e., apart from surrounding comments or accompanying opinion), they cannot possibly show reliance on an extrajudicial source; and can only in the rarest circumstances evidence the degree of favoritism or antagonism required . . . when no extrajudicial source is involved. . . . Second, opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.

Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (citation omitted). The test for recusal is an objective one. United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 994 (10th Cir. 1993). Moreover, "[t]here is as much obligation for a judge not to recuse when there is no occasion for [her] to do so as there is for [her] to do so when there is." Hinman v. Rogers, 831 F.2d, 937, 939 (10th Cir. 1987). Having examined the instant case and the other cases on my docket where Plaintiff is also a party, I find no reason why my impartiality might objectively or reasonably be questioned in this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Recuse Magistrate Mix [Docket No. 82; Filed September 11, 2008] is DENIED.