Richard Fine v. Sheriff of Los Angeles County

Good Law
356 F. App'x 998
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 16, 200909-56073California331 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Richard Fine appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

The district court correctly concluded that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yaffe’s refusal to recuse himself from Fine’s contempt proceedings was not “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law” or an “unreasonable determination of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); see also Jones v. Ryan, 583 F.3d 626, 636 (9th Cir.2009) (de novo review). A judge’s failure to recuse himself results in a constitutional violation where “the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 2257 , 173 L.Ed.2d 1208 (2009) (citation and quotation omitted). Fine asserts that Judge Yaffe was intolerably biased because he received employment benefits from Los Angeles County, a party to the underlying litigation. However, unlike the circumstances of Caperton , Judge Yaffe’s receipt of these benefits did not give him a “direct personal, substantial, pecuniary interest”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.