Whitehead v. The Walt Disney Company
- Willis
- 1:24-cv-02283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Whitehead v. Disney, Judge Willis denied Whitehead’s motion to recuse her, while leaving objections to a recommendation for later review.
David Louis Whitehead was affected because his motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis was denied. The objections to the Report and Recommendation were left for District Judge Garnett to address.
What happened
In Whitehead v. The Walt Disney Company, David Louis Whitehead asked the court to remove Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis from the case under a federal law requiring judges to step aside when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Whitehead argued that the judge had shown bias or prejudice during a hearing and in rulings issued afterward. His filing also appeared to object to the judge’s recommendation concerning the defendants’ motion to dismiss, but that issue was not decided in this order.
Judge Willis ruled that there was no basis for recusal and denied Whitehead’s motion. She said judicial comments that criticize or disapprove of a party or case generally do not establish bias. Judge Willis stated that District Judge Garnett would address Whitehead’s separate objections later.
The detailed version
- Whitehead v. The Walt Disney Company · No. 1:24-cv-02283
- Willis
- Aug. 22, 2025
Background
David Louis Whitehead, who represented himself, filed an “Emergency Motion for Recusal Disqualification and Striking Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis’ Report and Recommendation to Dismiss the Above Captioned Case.” The filing appeared to combine two requests: a motion asking Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis to recuse herself under 28 U.S.C. § 455, and objections to the judge’s Report and Recommendation concerning a motion to dismiss.
Recusal standards
Section 455(a) requires a federal judge to disqualify herself when her impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Section 455(b), in relevant part, also addresses personal bias or prejudice concerning a party and personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts. The court explained that recusal motions are decided within the district court’s discretion, but that recusal is prohibited when the legal standards for disqualification are not met.
Court’s analysis
Whitehead argued that Judge Willis was biased or prejudiced against him based on comments made during a March 26, 2025 hearing and on rulings issued after the hearing. Judge Willis concluded that there was no basis for recusal. She explained that even comments that are critical, disapproving, or hostile toward parties, lawyers, or their cases ordinarily do not establish bias or partiality. She stated that she had no bias or prejudice toward Whitehead or the case.
Disposition
Judge Willis denied Whitehead’s motion to recuse the court. This order did not decide the portion of Whitehead’s filing that objected to the Report and Recommendation. The order states that District Judge Garnett would address those objections in a later order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.