Jacobs

MEMORANDUM **

Willette D. Jacobs appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action with prejudice as a sanction for her repeated motions to recuse the presiding judge. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Jacobs sought recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455 . The substantive standard for recusal under either statute is the same: “Whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir.1997) (internal quotation omitted). The alleged bias or impartiality must arise, however, from “an extrajudicial source and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding.” United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1995) (internal quotation omitted). Applying this standard, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jacobs’ motions for recusal. The court correctly noted that Jacobs sought four times to disqualify the presiding judge based solely on adverse rulings. In such instances, recusal is not required. See e.g., Taylor v. Regents of Univ. of California,…