Free Order on Motion for Hearing/Conference - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01162-LTB-MJW

Document 71

Filed 05/05/2005

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-B-1162 (MJW) LAURENCE RENE' GOODMAN, Petitioner, v. SUSAN MEREDITH, Respondent.

ORDER REGARDING PETITIONER' MOTION FOR RECUSAL OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A MOTION FOR S AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING (DOCKET NO. 64) Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe This matter is before the court on the Pro Se Petitioner' Motion for Recusal or s in the Alternative a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (docket no. 64). The court has reviewed the motion and taken judicial notice of the court' file. In addition, the court s has considered 28 U.S.C. § 455 and applicable case law. The court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law and order. The court finds: 1. That it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties to this lawsuit. 2. 3. That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado. That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to be heard on the Pro Se Petitioner' Motion for Recusal or in the s

Case 1:04-cv-01162-LTB-MJW

Document 71

Filed 05/05/2005

Page 2 of 5

Alternative a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (docket no. 64). 4. That on June 8, 2004, Chief Judge Babcock referred this case to Magistrate Judge Watanabe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b) (docket no. 2). 5. That in Chief Judge Babcock' Order of Reference (docket no. 2), s he ordered that Magistrate Judge Watanabe " Conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for rulings on dispositive motions." 6. That on August 4, 2004, the Respondent United States of America filed a Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (docket no. 12). 7. That on August 6, 2004, Chief Judge Babcock referred to Magistrate Judge Watanabe for recommendation the Respondent United States of America' Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (docket s no. 12). See docket no. 15. 8. That on February 22, 2005, Magistrate Judge Watanabe issued a written recommendation regarding the Respondent United States of America' Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (docket no. 12). See s docket no. 58. It should be noted that although Magistrate Judge Watanabe signed this written recommendation on February 22, 2005, it was docketed on February 23, 2005. 9. That the recommendation regarding the Respondent United States of America' Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (docket no. 12) is s 2

Case 1:04-cv-01162-LTB-MJW

Document 71

Filed 05/05/2005

Page 3 of 5

currently pending before Chief Judge Babcock. 10. That on March 3, 2005, the Pro Se Petitioner filed the subject motion. (docket no. 64). 11. That Magistrate Judge Watanabe has had no previous dealings with the Petitioner other than with this case. 12. That Magistrate Judge Watanabe does have the authority to make a written recommendation on Respondent United States of America' Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (docket no. 12), based s upon the Order of Reference (docket no. 2) and additional written referral by Chief Judge Babcock (docket no. 15). 13. That no factual grounds exist to cause an observer reasonably to question Magistrate Judge Watanabe' impartiality. See United s States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 992 (10th Cir. 1993). Baseless personal attacks on the judge by a party or threats or other attempts to intimidate the judge ordinarily do not satisfy the requirements for disqualification. Id. Moreover, adverse rulings alone do not constitute grounds for recusal. Litesky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). 14. That an evidentiary hearing is not required nor is it needed in this case. This court was able to make a written recommendation on the Respondent United States of America' Motion for Mootness s (docket no. 12) without a hearing. 3

Case 1:04-cv-01162-LTB-MJW

Document 71

Filed 05/05/2005

Page 4 of 5

ORDER WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law, this court ORDERS: 1. That the Pro Se Petitioner' Motion for Recusal or in the Alternative s a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing (docket no. 64) is DENIED. 2. That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this motion. Done this 4th day of May 2005.

BY THE COURT s/ Michael J. Watanabe Michael J. Watanabe U.S. Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on _________________, 200___ , a copy of the foregoing document was served to the following persons by: X United States mail, proper postage affixed: Laurence Rene' Goodman c/o 299 Bear Drive Golden CO 80403 Anita Machhar Trial Attorney U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Division P.O. Box 683 Ben Franklin Station Washington DC 20044 4

Case 1:04-cv-01162-LTB-MJW

Document 71

Filed 05/05/2005

Page 5 of 5

s/courtroom deputy Deputy Clerk

5