Bernstein v. Lee
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:24-cv-00131
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Bernstein v. Lee, Judge Corley denied plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify her, finding their allegations did not legally show bias or questioned impartiality.
The plaintiffs’ request to disqualify the judge was denied; the order disposed of their disqualification motion.
What happened
In Bernstein v. Lee, the plaintiffs asked the court to disqualify the judge. They argued that the court disfavored people representing themselves and had a prior relationship with a law firm where a potential future defendant had worked.
The court denied the motion. It said earlier filing rulings, including requiring compliance with rules for sealed filings, did not show bias. It also said the proposed defendant was not a party and that the claimed connection was speculative. News articles about other cases and biblical passages likewise did not show that the judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
Judge Corley concluded that none of the plaintiffs’ allegations met the legal standard for disqualification under the applicable federal statutes. The order denied the motion and disposed of the motion’s docket entry.
The detailed version
- Bernstein v. Lee · No. 3:24-cv-00131
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 15, 2024
Background
Plaintiffs moved to disqualify the court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. They argued that the court showed disdain toward people representing themselves and had a prior relationship with a law firm where an individual they planned to add as a defendant had worked before being appointed to the Alameda County Superior Court bench.
Legal standard
Section 455 requires disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. Section 144 provides for recusal when a party submits a timely and legally sufficient affidavit alleging personal bias or prejudice. The court explained that the two provisions apply the same substantive test: whether a reasonable person who knew all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The court also explained that recusal generally requires bias from an outside source, rather than rulings, opinions, or statements made during the case. Adverse rulings or critical remarks ordinarily do not establish bias or prejudice.
Court’s analysis
The plaintiffs cited the court’s earlier denials of two administrative motions to file materials under seal. The court said those motions had been denied without prejudice to renewal under the local rules, and that it had provided filing guidance and referred plaintiffs to the Legal Help Center. The court therefore had not rejected the sealing requests on their merits.
Plaintiffs also challenged other orders concerning their complaint and service of process. The court noted that it had granted them two extensions of several months to serve the defendants, recognizing their health issues and unrepresented status. Even if some orders were adverse, the court said disagreement with a ruling was not evidence of bias.
The court found the proposed addition of an individual who had worked at the same law firm as the judge to be speculative. That individual was not a party, and the alleged connection would not justify disqualification even if the individual were a party. The court further held that news articles about other cases over which it had presided and plaintiffs’ references to biblical passages did not provide a basis for a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality.
Disposition
The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for disqualification. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 18.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.