- 2 -
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE JUDGE DOLLY M. GEE
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728COMES NOW Plaintiff
Erin K. Baldwin
to file this Motion forrecusal and/or disqualification of the Honorable Dolly M. Gee ("Judge Gee") pursuant to hercourt order dated February 15, 2012 taking under submission for ruling the Motion to Dismissof Defendant Franz E. Miller; and the recusal and/or disqualification of all other U.S. CentralDistrict of California Judges; and Reassignment to a Judge of Another District by Chief JudgeAlex Kozinski.Plaintiff hereby requests that pursuant to General Order 08-05, Section 4.0, that thisMotion be "randomly assigned to another judge for decision immediately upon filing and thatthe challenged judge [Judge Gee]
may not proceed further until the recusal / disqualification motion is determined
."Plaintiff hereby requests an Evidentiary Hearing and the opportunity to deposeDefendant Sarah L. Overton prior to said hearing.MOTION TO DISQUALIFY1. Plaintiff's primary arguments in this Motion to disqualify and/or recuse JudgeGee are in line with the Ninth Circuit rulings in
Pesnell v. Arsenault
United States v.Sibla
that held: "Both recusal statutes
employ the same substantive standard:
"Whether areasonable person with knowledge of all t
he facts would conclude that the judge’s
impartiality might reasonably be
Undoubtedly, after review of this Motion,the answer would be emphatically in the affirmative.2. In the U.S Supreme Court action,
Offutt v. United States
the High Courtfound that the judge had become so personally embroiled with the case that he had to bereplaced, as he had abandoned his role as a neutral arbiter due to personal animosity of one of the parties. Judge Gee's conduct exceeds "embroilment" and has become criminal obstructionof justice.3. When U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter ("Judge Carter") recusedhimself from Plaintiff's case, the case was not randomly reassigned to Judge Gee via the
543 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2008);
also Sibla, 624 F.2d at 867 (‘t
he substantive test for bias or
prejudice is identical in sections 144 and 455’)."
624 F.2d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 1980).
28 U.S.C. §455 and 28 U.S.C. §144.
348 U.S. 11 (1954).
Case: 12-70296 02/16/2012 ID: 8071104 DktEntry: 6-1 Page: 2 of 27