Moreno v. County of San Diego

Citation947 F.2d 950
Decision Date05 November 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-56270,90-56270
PartiesNOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Jose MORENO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Before SCHROEDER, LEAVY and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

After receiving a determination of no discrimination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Jose Moreno brought this action in the district court against his employer, the County of San Diego, alleging various violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. After a full bench trial, the district court held that the County had not violated Title VII and denied relief. Moreno appeals alleging bias and prejudice of the district court, and numerous errors of fact and law.

The record fails to support Moreno's charges that the district court was so biased or prejudiced against him that reversal is required. Bias or prejudice for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455 must stem from an extra-judicial source, not from information gained in the course of the proceeding. In re Manoa Finance Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 1370, 1373 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1064 (1987). Moreno did not sustain the "greater burden" of demonstrating bias required of a litigant who fails to move for recusal in the district court. See United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir.1980).

Moreno's chief evidence of bias is the court's use of the "outrageously offensive" term "Mexican Mafia." In employing this term, however, the court was simply commenting on evidence in the record, not addressing Moreno's character. This evidence falls well short of the requisite showing.

The district court held that Moreno failed to make out a prima facie case for disparate impact under Title VII. This determination was based on a permissible reading of the requirements imposed by the Supreme Court in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989). Wards Cove requires the plaintiff seeking to use statistics to make out a prima facie case for disparate impact to demonstrate a disproportion between the number of members of a protected group in a certain job position and their number in the pool of qualified persons in the labor market. Id. at 650-51. Moreno's statistics fail to make the relevant comparison.

The district court found a prima facie case stated for some of the several disparate treatment claims advanced by Moreno and thus denied the County's motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). The court held, however, that the County successfully rebutted...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT