RONALD LEIGHTON, District Judge
THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendant's Motion for Recusal [Dkt. #16]. Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:
Title 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) provides that "[a]ny justice, judge or magistrate shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." A judge's rulings and expressions of opinion, rarely create a valid basis for recusal under § 455(a). Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). "[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings . . . do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Id. at 555.
This Court's comments at the re-sentencing of one of Ms. Pittman's co-defendants in her original case (CR04-5350RBL) do not rise to the level required for reversal. The Court's comments came over three weeks after the Court had taken Ms. Pittman's guilty plea in this case, and derived wholly from "facts introduced or events occurring" Id., in both of Ms. Pittman's cases now pending before the Court. The Court's comments merely demonstrate an "attitude of disapproval toward certain persons because of their known conduct," United States v. Conforte, 624 F.2d 869, 881 (9th Cir. 1980), and do not "display a deep-seated . . . antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible." Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Recusal [Dkt. #16] is DENIED.
The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing pro se.
IT IS SO ORDERED.