You are on page 1of 2

Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 189 Filed 06/30/17 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 United States of America, No. CR-16-01012-001-PHX-SRB
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Joseph M. Arpaio,
13 Defendant.
14
15 At issue are Defendants Motion for Leave to File Motion for Change of Venue
16 and Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. 171).
17 Defendant argues that the Court should transfer this case to another venue because
18 of the massive media coverage over the years, and now, that may make it impossible
19 for him to obtain a fair and unbiased trial in the District of Arizona. (Mot. for Change of
20 Venue at 4-5.) The grant of a motion for change of venue moves the location of the trial
21 to obtain an impartial jury when pretrial publicity may have affected the potential jury
22 pool. United States v. Sherwood, 98 F.3d 402, 410 (9th Cir. 1996), as amended (Oct. 28,
23 1996). Defendants Motion does not seek a change of venue for the purpose of obtaining
24 an impartial jury pool but seeks the recusal of the Court because the case is being tried
25 by a judge for contempt of another judge of the same court. (Mot. for Change of Venue
26 at 5.) Title 28 U.S.C. 144 provides for recusal only after a party files a timely and
27 sufficient affidavit averring that the judge before whom the case is pending has a
28 personal bias or prejudice either against the party or in favor of any adverse party.
Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 189 Filed 06/30/17 Page 2 of 2

1 Defendants Motion does not comply with the statute, and is therefore denied.
2 IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants Motion for Leave to File Motion for
3 Change of Venue (Doc. 171).
4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendants Motion for Change of Venue
5 (Doc. 171).
6 Dated this 30th day of June, 2017.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-