Opinion
ORDER STRIKING PURPORTED MOTION FOR RECUSAL
This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.
JEREMY FOGEL, District Judge.
On March 31, 2010, Plaintiff Kim Dang filed a pleading entitled "Recusal of Judge for Cause and True Bill for Judge's Acts." Plaintiff seeks to recuse the undersigned judge on the basis of alleged bias against William Bullock Stewart III, a non-attorney who purports to act as Plaintiffs' counsel in this action as a "private attorney general." Treating Plaintiff's pleading as a motion for recusal, the Court finds that the motion is frivolous and finds no support in federal law. To succeed on a motion for recusal, a party must comply with the procedural requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 144. The party also must demonstrate that a "reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). A judge's ruling on a contested matter rarely may serve as a basis for recusal. Liteky vs. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
The pleading is hereby stricken.