[YY] Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

[Kotwica]

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

 

Case Number: YY-XNNN

Prepared by: Donald J. Wright

 

MOTION FOR EMERGENCY REMOVAL OF A JUDGE

_______________________________________________

 

Argument

 

Comes now, the Plaintiff in the matter Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department LCS-CV-2024-001 asks this Honorable Court to assert judicial review and remove Judge Hockenbeyer from the abovementioned case due to his negligent handling, and inability or unwillingness to timely address the civil issue before the court.

 

After an objection between plaintiff and defense counsel on August 19, Judge Hockenbeyer has refused to show up to court, and address the witness to answer further questions. Rather, Judge Hockenbeyer availed himself only when the opposing counsel made mention of the offer for settlement. Judge Hockenbeyer then abruptly and incorrectly interpreted the law in stating.

 

"I must remind you that your client's active participation is essential for these discussions to proceed effectively. If you are unable to reach your client and facilitate their involvement in these negotiations, the court may consider dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute.

 

Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss an action if the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order. This includes situations where a plaintiff is unresponsive or otherwise fails to move their case forward. The court is empowered to dismiss the case with or without prejudice depending on the circumstances."

My client has no obligation to engage in ANY settlement negotiation. We are the party that is prepared to continue to try this case, we have shown up to court ready to proceed. The idea that the party that has asked the court to instruct a witness to answer is at fault for attempt to trying a case goes against the most basic concepts of court procedure. Additionally, threatening myself and my client that our case will be dismissed because my client was approached ex parte and did not agree to negotiate is an extraordinary abuse of discretion. Judge Hockenbeyer in this comment exhibits an extreme prejudice or evidence that he is incapable of understanding basic concepts of law and should not serve on this bench.

As this court has failed to facilitate any dialogue close to one month our only hope is that through judicial review this higher court reassign this case to a judge of competence and who will not further waste and abuse my time, and my clients time. I also will advise this court that it is my plan to sue this body if proper awards are not made for my continuous travel to and from San Fierro to find a judge not at the bench during almost a month of scheduled trial.

 

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 12 day of September, 2024 by:

 

/s/ Donald J. Wright

Donald J. Wright

 

[Fabi]

* The clerk's office would process the motion under docket number "B19495", docket of Hon. Gregory Yarborough. Registered as an emergency motion hence being classified as ex parte.

(( Will do my best to rule on it today. @Kotwica @Michael @almightybounter ))

[Fabi]

COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

 

PLAINTIFF: Stefan Castillo

DEFENDANT: Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

 

CASE NUMBER: B19495

 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE

_______________________________________________
 

I. BACKGROUND
 

On September 12th, 2024, counsel for plaintiff moved to disqualify the judge randomly assigned to preside over their civil matter. In support of the motion, counsel filed a sworn declaration. Being an emergency motion and having an ex parte nature, justified by its seriousness and urgency, no statements were solicited from the Defendant. The motion is based on allegations of negligent handling and the inability or unwillingness of the judge to timely address the civil issues before the court, and was randomly assigned to me, pursuant to San Andreas law. The urgency of the motion is warranted on the basis of a lenghty absence of the presiding judge, hereby affecting the administration of justice and integrity of the judicial system.

 

II. FINDINGS OF FACTS

 

1. The judge assigned to the case registered as LCS-CV-2024-001 is the Hon. Martin Hockenbeyer of the Los Santos County Superior Court. He was randomly assigned to preside over the matter on June 30, 2024.

 

2.  On August 28, 2024, Judge Hockenbeyer stated, among other things, the following:

 

"I must remind you that your client's active participation is essential for these discussions to proceed effectively. If you are unable to reach your client and facilitate their involvement in these negotiations, the court may consider dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute."

 

***

 

3. Starting from the above-referenced date, Judge Hockenbeyer also halted to further address the civil issue up to the date of this order.

 

4. Thereafter, the attorney-complainant filed an emergency motion to disqualify the judge, arising out of the aforementioned facts and circumstances.

 

III. ANALYSIS

 

28 U.S.C. § 144 and 455(a) contain the following applicable provisions:

 

28 U.S.C. § 144:

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

 

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.

 

28 U.S.C. § 455(a): 

Any judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

 

***

 

In the absence of binding state-level case law regarding such matters, this Court recognizes the persuasive authority of all federal courts.

 

Courts often apply these pronouncements broadly, because “it is a general rule that the appearance of partiality is as dangerous as the fact of it.” United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1012 (1980). “Quite simply and quite universally, recusal [is] required whenever ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’” even in the absence of actual bias or prejudice. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994). As stated in United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568, 576 (3d. Cir. 1995), “If there is an appearance of partiality, that ends the matter.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has also "recognized that it is essential to avoid even the appearance of impropriety because it is as important in developing the public confidence in our judicial system as avoiding the impropriety itself. [United States v.] Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 155-56.”

 

It is true that in this unusual situation there are factors that are inconsistent with an appearance of partiality on the part of the judge. Thus, the above-referenced comments of the judge were extremely questionable. Furthermore, as a result of developments occurring after this lawsuit was filed (i.e. the unjustified absence of the judge from the proceedings), a reasonable person might reasonably question the ability of the trial judge to discharge his duties without prejudice to the parties.

 

Under the presented circumstances, this Court has been shown good cause for the failure to file the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists within the time period imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 144.

 

In short, the district judge now is subject to continuous and heightened scrutiny resulting from him being placed in a position that casts doubt on his ability proceed without prejudicing the parties.

 

IV. CONCLUSIONS

 

Under the foregoing authorities and for the foregoing reasons, the attorney-complainant has met the burden of proof required to establish grounds for disqualification under San Andreas law due to the judge's negligent handling of the case and failure to address significant legal issues in a timely manner.

The Court finds that the judge's actions (or lack thereof) have compromised the integrity of the judicial process and have resulted in a substantial risk that the movant will not receive a fair trial.

 

Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is hereby ordered that:

 

1.  The emergency motion to disqualify the Honorable Martin Hockenbeyer is GRANTED.
2. The case shall be reassigned to another judge in accordance with the procedures outlined in the San Andreas statutes.
3. The Presiding Judge of the Los Santos County Superior Court shall take the necessary steps to reassign the case.
4. Any pending motions shall be addressed by the newly assigned judge without further delay.

 

 

_______________________________________________

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 2024

 

Hon. Gregory Yarborough

Administrative Presiding Justice

Court of Appeals, Second District, Division One

 

 

(( Will handle a replacement as soon as possible @Kotwica @Michael @almightybounter ))

Edited September 13, 2024 by Fabi
typos