From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. George

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 27, 2012
No. CR-01-0326 MMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012)

Opinion

No. CR-01-0326 MMC

03-27-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RANDOLPH GEORGE, Defendant


ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S

REQUEST FOR COURT'S PERMISSION

TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; DENYING

REQUEST FOR RECUSAL; DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The Court is in receipt of defendant Randolph George's "Request for Court's Permission to File a Motion for Reconsideration," filed March 22, 2012. By the instant request, defendant seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's March 9, 2012 order, which order denied a motion for reconsideration of the Court's November 18, 2008 order denying his claim, made under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, that his conviction should be set aside because of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Having read and considered the request, the Court hereby rules as follows.

First, to the extent the request includes a request that the undersigned be recused, the motion is hereby DENIED, for the reason that the request is procedurally improper, see 28 U.S.C. § 144 (providing party seeking recusal of judge must submit "timely and sufficient affidavit"), and legally insufficient, see United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 1980) (finding motion for recusal "legally insufficient," where motion was "devoid of specific fact allegations tending to show personal bias stemming from an extrajudicial source"); see also United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding "a judge's prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal").

Second, to the extent the request seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the request is hereby DENIED, because defendant fails to identify any cognizable basis for reconsideration.

Lastly, to the extent defendant may seek to appeal the instant order, a certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED, for the reason defendant has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. George

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 27, 2012
No. CR-01-0326 MMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. George

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RANDOLPH GEORGE, Defendant

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 27, 2012

Citations

No. CR-01-0326 MMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012)