Wills v. City of Monterey

Background

Cynthia S. Wills, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an affidavit of bias under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and sought recusal or disqualification of the magistrate judge to whom discovery issues had been referred. Wills asserted that the judge became angry after Wills was late joining a discovery hearing, was irritated by Wills’s distress about a discovery deadline, overruled all of Wills’s discovery objections, and was aggressively critical in the hearing and later orders. Wills also challenged the court’s requirements that the parties meet and confer and submit discovery letters.

Legal standard

The court explained that federal law requires recusal when a reasonable person who knew the facts could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality. Generally, bias must come from an outside source and must result in an opinion based on something other than the judge’s participation in the case. Opinions formed from events in the case ordinarily do not support recusal unless they show such deep favoritism or hostility that fair judgment would be impossible. The court also explained that an affidavit under § 144 must be sent to another judge for a decision on the merits only if the affidavit specifically alleges facts legally supporting recusal. A request under 28 U.S.C. § 455, by contrast, is decided by the judge to whom it is directed.

Court’s analysis

The court found no basis to recuse. It said it had given Wills additional latitude because she was unrepresented and had not blamed her for having difficulty connecting to the March 12, 2024 discovery hearing. The court stated that unfavorable rulings alone are legally insufficient to require recusal. It also found Wills’s assertion that the court overruled every objection inaccurate, explaining that prior orders rejected some objections but accepted Wills’s responses or objections to several other requests.

The court further concluded that its management of the hearing and discovery disputes did not show bias. Wills was required, like other litigants, to meet and confer in good faith and file letter briefs explaining the requested relief and the reasons supporting it. Even assuming for purposes of analysis that the judge had been angry, irritated, or aggressively critical, the court found that Wills identified no outside source for that alleged displeasure. The court stated that critical or hostile judicial remarks and ordinary efforts to manage proceedings ordinarily do not support a bias challenge.

Disposition

The court declined to recuse and declined to refer the matter to another judge. To the extent Wills’s affidavit was construed as a motion to disqualify the court, it was denied. The court also instructed Wills to comply with its previous instructions if she wished to present a discovery dispute.