Thornton v. Daly City
- Haywood Gilliam
- 3:19-cv-07638
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Thornton v. Daly City, Judge Gilliam denied Curtis Thornton’s motion to disqualify him because it identified no specific facts showing bias.
Curtis Thornton and the judge assigned to the case; the order addressed Thornton’s request to disqualify the judge.
What happened
In Thornton v. Daly City, Curtis Thornton asked the judge to step aside from the case.
Thornton cited several statutes and constitutional amendments, but the opinion says he made no specific allegations explaining why the judge was biased or appeared impartial.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied the motion, finding that it failed under the laws governing judicial disqualification, and terminated the two related docket entries.
The detailed version
- Thornton v. Daly City · No. 3:19-cv-07638
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 18, 2021
Background
Curtis Thornton filed a motion, followed by an amended motion, asking the judge assigned to his case to disqualify himself. Thornton relied on several statutes and constitutional amendments, including provisions concerning voting rights, insurrection and rebellion, forced labor, and the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Legal standard
The court explained that motions seeking a judge’s disqualification or recusal are governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section 144 requires a timely and sufficient affidavit alleging personal bias or prejudice and stating the supporting facts and reasons. Section 455 requires disqualification when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidence.
Court’s ruling
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. found that Thornton’s motion failed as a matter of law because it merely listed statutes and constitutional amendments without making specific allegations supporting disqualification. The court concluded that Thornton had not established a basis under either statute for questioning the court’s impartiality. It also explained that prior judicial rulings may provide grounds for an appeal but generally do not establish a valid basis for recusal. The court denied the motion to disqualify and stated that the order terminated Docket Nos. 51 and 52.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.