Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-cv-01850-EWN-MEH.
May 2, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's motion for a writ of mandamus and/or recusal (#47). The court has carefully reviewed the motion and applicable law. It is clear that Plaintiff seeks disqualification solely because the undersigned judge has ruled against him in pending litigation. The court is aware of no authority requiring disqualification where prior rulings are alleged to constitute the basis for disqualification. Were the law otherwise, any losing litigant could seek disqualification and chaos would result. As for mandamus, it is clear that such a writ would lie to compel the performance of a nondiscretionary duty owed to Plaintiff. The court did not violate any duty to Plaintiff by ruling against him on the merits of a case. The motion is therefore DENIED.