Davies to Remain as King Case Judge : Courts: A federal jurist says statements during officers’ trial did not indicate bias. The ruling clears the way for lawsuit against city to proceed.

A federal judge has denied an effort by Rodney G. King’s lawyer to prevent U.S. District Judge John G. Davies from presiding over King’s civil case against the city of Los Angeles.

In a two-page order received by lawyers in the case Monday, U.S. District Judge William Matthew Byrne Jr. said King’s lawyers had failed to show that Davies was biased. Byrne also ruled that King’s attorneys had not shown that Davies was influenced by factors other than those obtained through evidence and proceedings in court--a condition for recusing a judge from a case.

Byrne’s order clears the way for the lawsuit to proceed, and it was welcomed by lawyers for the city and for some of the officers who are being sued.

“I’m gratified by the order,” said Ira Salzman, the lawyer for former Sgt. Stacey C. Koon, one of two Los Angeles police officers serving federal prison sentences for violating King’s civil rights. “It was a silly motion.”

Don Vincent, the deputy city attorney who is defending the city in King’s lawsuit, said he had expected Judge Byrne to deny the motion. “Judge Davies is an excellent judge, and I don’t think he’s said or done anything that would lead one to think that he would be biased one way or the other.”

By coincidence, Davies was assigned to hear both King’s lawsuit and the civil rights case against Koon and three other Los Angeles police officers--Laurence M. Powell, Timothy E. Wind and Theodore J. Briseno. Koon and Powell were convicted in that case, and Davies’ comments during sentencing were the principal basis for the motion urging his removal from the civil case.

During the sentencing in that case, Davies said the case of both officers was “fraught with sympathy” and he remarked on their “distinguished records of public service.” Davies also found that only the final flurry of blows delivered by the officers represented an illegal use of force against King. He gave each of the officers a 2 1/2-year prison term, far less than prosecutors had requested.

“A fair reading of the evidence in the criminal case, contrasted with the court’s findings and remarks at the time of sentencing, compels the conclusion that the court’s bias in favor of the officers in this matter is of a kind and degree that is constitutionally impermissible,” Victoria E. King, one of King’s lawyers, said in the motion for recusal.

Neither Victoria King--who is not related to Rodney King--nor Milton C. Grimes, King’s other attorney, could be reached for comment Monday.

Efforts to reach a settlement between the city and King so far have been unsuccessful. Davies has set a trial date for next March.