From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Koerner v. Cox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Mar 26, 2013
3:11-CV-0116-LRH (VPC) (D. Nev. Mar. 26, 2013)

Opinion

3:11-CV-0116-LRH (VPC)

03-26-2013

KELLY KOERNER, Plaintiff, v. JAMES GREG COX, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a motion to recuse (#79), seeking to have the undersigned removed from this action. Recusal is governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Plaintiff's affidavit must set forth facts and reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists. 28 U.S.C. § 144. The standard for recusal under Sections 144 and 455 is "whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986). The alleged prejudice must result from an extrajudicial source; a judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal. Id. The challenged judge should rule on the legal sufficiency of a recusal motion in the first instance. Id. at 939.

Plaintiff's allegations do not meet the sufficiency requirement of Section 144. See 28 U.S.C. § 144 (Party must file timely affidavit setting forth facts and reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists). Plaintiff's allegations of prejudice do not result from an extrajudicial source. Plaintiff has shown no reason for this judge's impartiality to be questioned.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to recuse (#79) is DENIED.

______________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Koerner v. Cox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Mar 26, 2013
3:11-CV-0116-LRH (VPC) (D. Nev. Mar. 26, 2013)
Case details for

Koerner v. Cox

Case Details

Full title:KELLY KOERNER, Plaintiff, v. JAMES GREG COX, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Mar 26, 2013

Citations

3:11-CV-0116-LRH (VPC) (D. Nev. Mar. 26, 2013)