Opinion
CV-18-04896-PHX-DLR
12-03-2021
Christerphor Ziglar, Plaintiff, v. Jeff Scheaffer, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Douglas L. Rayes United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Christerphor Ziglar's Motion to Disqualify Judge (Doc. 73) and Motion to Stay (Doc. 75) proceedings until the Motion to Disqualify is resolved.
A federal judge shall disqualify himself in a proceeding if his impartiality might reasonably be questioned or if he harbors personal bias or prejudice about a party to the proceeding, possesses personal knowledge of disputed facts in the matter, or otherwise has a qualifying special relationship related to the proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 455. The statute “must be given the utmost strict construction to safeguard the judiciary from frivolous attacks upon its integrity and to prevent abuse and insure the orderly functioning of the judicial system.” Rademacher v. City of Phoenix, 442 F.Supp. 27, 29 (D. Ariz. 1977) (citations omitted). The movant bears the burden of proving facts sufficient to justify recusal; allegations that are merely conclusory are not legally sufficient. United States v. $292, 888.04 U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Vespe, 868F.2d 1328, 1340 (3d. Cir.1989). 1 A court's judicial rulings “almost never” constitute a valid basis for a motion to disqualify. United States v. Liteky, 5 10 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
Plaintiff argues that disqualification is proper because the Court allegedly ignored his motions. (Doc. 73.) Even if that were a proper ground for disqualification, Plaintiff is factually mistaken; the Court addressed his motions by denying them as moot after dismissing the then-operative complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 30 at 4.) Because Plaintiff has not made a sufficient evidence-based showing of judicial bias, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify Judge (Doc. 73) is DENIED
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Stay (Doc. 75) is DENIED as moot. 2