Opinion
2:23-cv-00729-RSM
07-11-2023
TERRY EZELL, Plaintiff, v. SHAWN MCCANN, Defendant.
ORDER AFFIRMING DENIAL OF
RECUSAL (DKT. NO. 9)
DAVID G. ESTUDILLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on Judge Ricardo S. Martinez's order (Dkt. No. 9) denying Plaintiff's motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (Dkt. No. 8).
On June 21, 2023, Plaintiff moved for Judge Martinez's recusal, arguing that Judge Martinez's prior sentencing of Plaintiff would lead a reasonable person to question his impartiality because the instant case “arises from” the prior criminal proceeding involving the Plaintiff “that judge [sic] Martinez made findings in” and because there is an ongoing appeal regarding the findings made by Judge Martinez. (Dkt. No. 8 at 2-3.) Additionally, Plaintiff points to a long sentence he received as indicative of Judge Martinez's bias. (Id. at 3.) Judge Martinez declined to recuse, finding that Plaintiff was solely relying on Judge Martinez's prior rulings as evidence of bias and that Plaintiff “present[ed] no reasonable basis to question impartiality.” (Dkt. No. 9 at 2.)
Local Civil Rule 3(f) provides that whenever a judge in this District declines to voluntarily recuse themselves from a case after a party makes a recusal motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 or 28 U.S.C. § 455, “he or she will direct the clerk to refer the motion to the chief judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) in turn requires federal judges to “disqualify [] [themselves] in any proceeding in which [] [their] impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). A judge must recuse if “a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir.1997)). “The alleged prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source; a judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.” United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986).
The Court agrees with Judge Martinez that the basis for Plaintiff's recusal motion appears to solely rest on Judge Martinez's prior rulings. Though Plaintiff points out that he received a longer sentence than another individual who also was also arrested for drug trafficking, Plaintiff does not indicate that Judge Martinez relied on any improper extrajudicial knowledge when issuing his sentence. Past adverse rulings in another judicial proceeding, including the imposition of long sentences, do not merit Judge Martinez's recusal. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that the “fact that a judge has previously expressed . . . a dedication to upholding the law or a determination to impose severe punishment within the limits of the law upon those found guilty of a particular offense” does not merit recusal).
Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS Judge Martinez's refusal to recuse himself in this matter.