Firsov v. JetBlue Airways Corporation
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-03387
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Firsov v. JetBlue, Judge Hixson denied Sergey Firsov’s motion to disqualify him based on alleged bias and prior rulings.
The ruling directly affects Sergey Firsov’s request to have Judge Thomas S. Hixson disqualified from the case; the motion was denied.
What happened
Firsov v. JetBlue Airways Corporation concerned Sergey Firsov’s request that the judge leave the case because of alleged due-process violations and bias.
Firsov relied on the judge’s denial of his application to proceed without paying the filing fee, an order requiring him to explain why the case should not be dismissed, and alleged failures to consider his filings. He also argued that financial information in his filing should have been sealed.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied the motion to disqualify. Judge Hixson explained that adverse judicial rulings generally are not enough to show the required bias, that Firsov had not requested a hearing in this case, that the court had read his reconsideration motion, and that he had not moved to seal the financial information.
The detailed version
- Firsov v. JetBlue Airways Corporation · No. 3:25-cv-03387
- Thomas Hixson
- May 19, 2025
Background
Sergey Firsov moved to disqualify the judge for cause. He argued that the judge had violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by engaging in what Firsov described as destructive behavior and by issuing an improper order to show cause without a fair hearing. Firsov also asserted that the judge ignored or failed to read his documents.
The opinion states that Firsov’s motion was based on the judge’s denial of his application to proceed without paying the filing fee and the judge’s subsequent order requiring him to show why the case should not be dismissed after he did not pay the filing fee. Firsov also argued that the court ignored a request for a hearing, failed to read his motion for reconsideration, and should have sealed financial information disclosed in his application.
Legal standard and analysis
The court explained that motions to disqualify or recuse a judge are governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. Section 144 requires a timely and sufficient affidavit alleging personal bias or prejudice and stating the supporting facts and reasons. Section 455 requires disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including when the judge has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.
The court stated that alleged bias ordinarily must come from a source outside the judicial proceedings. It held that judicial rulings may provide grounds for a later appeal but are not a valid basis for recusal, and that a prior adverse ruling alone does not establish bias.
The court further stated that Firsov had filed a hearing request in some other cases pending in the district but had not filed one in this case. The court also stated that it had read Firsov’s motion for reconsideration and denied that motion in a separate order. Regarding the financial information, the court noted that Firsov had not filed a motion to seal or shown that the standards for sealing had been met.
Ruling
Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied Firsov’s motion to disqualify. The opinion does not add a prejudice qualifier to that denial.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.