Opinion
NO. CR. S-89-0062 WBS GGH.
June 22, 2007
ORDER
The court finds Montalvo's motion to have his Rule 35(a) motion "reviewed and adjudicated only by the Article III District, and not by Magistrate Judge for Findings, Recommendations, or Conclusions" to be without merit.
The first reason asserted by Montalvo is that this a dispositive motion alleging an illegal sentence. Local Rules 72-300 and 72-302 contemplate that the magistrate judges of this court may hear dispositive as well as nondispositive motions. When dispositive motions are assigned to a magistrate judge, the appropriate procedure is for the magistrate judge to make findings and recommendations to the district judge. Such motions may ultimately be decided, however, only by the district judge.
The second reason asserted is that the Magistrate Judge's recent writings in this case do not reflect the "impartiality and fairness" defendant had hoped for. Those writings, which this court has read, reflect only the natural frustration which defendant and his counsel should expect from the lack of meritorious content and sheer volume of defendant's recent filings. The circumstances under which a judge may be disqualified from hearing a matter are set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 455. As the Supreme has recognized,
First, judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion. . . . 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, 554, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). The reasons asserted by Montalvo do not even come close to requiring recusal of the Magistrate Judge.
The third asserted reason is that the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge are "usually given great weight by the district courts without much review." To the extent that this suggests district courts do not make their own independent determination on the matters referred to magistrate judges for findings and recommendations it is wrong.
In this case, the assignment of defendant's current Rule 35(a) motion to the Magistrate Judge for findings and recommendations will be of substantial assistance to the court, especially given the assigned Magistrate Judge's familiarity with the procedural history and issues in this case. There is no persuasive reason for the court to exercise its discretion to withdraw the reference to the Magistrate Judge.
It might be different if this were the only case this court had to resolve. But the judges of this court have more weighted cases per judge than any other district in the United States. It might also be different if this were the only motion this defendant had asked the court to decide. But, by this court's rough count, Montalvo has filed at least 55 motions, not to mention more than 40 additional pleadings labeled "notices" or "requests," since he was sentenced in this case. If the court could not rely on the assistance of its magistrate judges in matters such as this, it would be impossible to hear and decide even a fraction of the matters which this court must resolve each year.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's objection to the participation of the Magistrate Judge is OVERRULED, and his "motion to have defendant's motion under Criminal 35(a) (1985) to correct an illegal sentence be reviewed and adjudicated only by the Article III District Court, and not by Magistrate Judge for findings, recommendations, or conclusions" is DENIED.