1

RICHARD I. FINE, In Pro Per

Prisoner ID # 1824367
2 c/o Men’s Central Jail
3 441 Bauchet Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
7

9
RICHARD I. FINE, Case No. CV-10-0048 JFW (CW)
Plaintiff,
10 MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE
11 vs. JOHN F. WALTER AND
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CARLA M.
12
WOEHRLE
13 STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA;
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE
14 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA;
15 SCOTT DREXEL, Chief Trial Counsel
of the State Bar of California; and THE
16
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
17 (only as a necessary party);
18
Defendants.
19

20

21

22
28 U.S.C. § 455(a) mandates disqualification of Judge John F. Walter and
23

24 Magistrate Judge Carla M. Woehrle. It states that any justice, judge or magistrate
25
judge of the United States shall disqualify him/herself in any proceeding in which
26

27 his/her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

28

-1-
 1
Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge Woehrle’s impartiality are in question in
2 that they have a history of bias and abject refusal to obey the law and U.S.
3
Supreme Court precedent in cases where Fine was and is a party.
4

5 Most recently, in case number CV-09-1743 JFW (CW), a writ of habeas

6
corpus case charging Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge Woehrle with violating
7

8 28 U.S.C. § 2243, Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge Woehrle refused to

9
disqualify themselves. They “judged their own actions” in violation of the
10
Supreme Court precedent of In Re Murchison, 349 US 133, 136 (1955), cited in
11

12 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 566 U.S. ___ (2009), decided June 8,
13
2009, Slip Opinion page 10. They denied the writ.
14

15 In case number CV-09-1914 JFW (CW), Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge
16
Woehrle denied a writ of habeas corpus where a judge had “judged his own
17

18
actions” in a contempt proceeding. Judge Walter then denied a certificate of

19 appealability. The Ninth Circuit overturned him and granted the certificate.
20
In case three, CV-08-2906 JFW (CW), Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge
21

22 Woehrle denied Fine’s unopposed motion to set aside a judgment to abstain from
23
hearing a case where, due to their nearly ten-month delay in deciding a motion to
24

25 dismiss, a state court proceeding was over and abstention was moot.
26
The underlying facts in all of the above cases involved criminal payments
27
from LA County to LA Superior Court judges and the resultant actions by the LA
28

-2-
 1
Superior Court judges and LA County to injure Fine, who had exposed and
2 challenged such illegal and criminal payments.
3
The instant case shows the fraud of the State Bar upon the Court in seeking
4

5 and obtaining the disbarment of Fine. This fraud was accomplished in collusion
6
with LA Superior Court judges who received criminal payments from LA
7

8 County. It was accomplished through the assistance of a State Bar president who
9
represented LA County and a developer who was a co-defendant with LA County
10
in cases against Fine’s clients, and a State Bar public member who was involved
11

12 in two cases against Fine’s clients. These members of the State Bar Board of
13
Governors had a personal interest in removing Fine from cases and matters in
14

15 which they and their law firms were personally involved.

16
The history of bias and outright refusal to obey the law and Supreme Court
17

18
precedent by Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge Woehrle mandates their

19 disqualification. Further, Article 3, Section 1, of the United States Constitution

20
states that judges shall serve “during good behavior”. Here, the outright violation
21

22 of the law and binding Supreme Court precedent, combined with the delaying of
23
cases and improper dismissals, also raises the issue of “good behavior” as to
24

25 Judge Walter and Magistrate Judge Woehrle. At a minimum, their

26
disqualification is mandated under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
27

28

-3-
 1
Dated this ___ day of February, 2010 Respectfully submitted,
2

3 BY: ____________________________
RICHARD I. FINE,
4
In Pro Per
5

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-4-
 1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
3 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
4

5
I am Fred Sottile. My address is 2601 E. Victoria Street, # 108, Rancho
6 Dominguez, CA 90220.
7 On February ___, 2010, I served the foregoing document described as
8
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE JOHN F. WALTER AND
9

10
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CARLA M. WOEHRLE on interested parties in this

11 action by depositing a true copy thereof, which was enclosed in a sealed

12
envelope, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail, addressed as
13

14 follows:
15
Office of the General Counsel Scott Drexel
16 State Bar of California 1325 Howard Ave #151
180 Howard Street Burlingame, CA 94010
17 San Francisco, CA 94105

18

19 I certify and declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
20 States of America and the State of California, that the foregoing is true and
21 correct.
22 Executed on this ___ day of February, 2010, at Rancho Dominguez,
23 California.
24

25 ____________________________________
26 FRED SOTTILE
27

28

-5-