Wine v. Merit Systems Protection Board

Background

Mitchell Wine filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 144 seeking to disqualify Judge Spero based on alleged personal bias or prejudice. The case involves Wine’s attempt to obtain review of a Merit Systems Protection Board decision and names several federal and state defendants.

Before filing the disqualification motion, Wine challenged the court’s scheduling decisions and sought early discovery and a decision on his request for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court had postponed discovery and related case-management deadlines until after it considered several motions to dismiss that raised jurisdictional issues. The court also declined to decide Wine’s request for declaratory and injunctive relief without the scheduled hearing.

Wine also sent repeated emails to court staff seeking legal advice, asking for rulings, and requesting other action in the case. The court ordered him not to seek legal advice from court staff, prohibited further emails or telephone calls to the courtroom deputy, and required future communications to be made in filed documents. After additional emails, the court characterized the communications as harassment and prohibited further harassing email communications.

Legal Standard

Section 144 provides for reassignment when a party files a timely and sufficient affidavit showing that the judge has personal bias or prejudice against the party or in favor of an opposing party. Under the court’s Civil Local Rule 3-14, a request is referred to the Clerk for random assignment to another judge only when the affidavit is neither legally insufficient nor filed for delay.

The court relied on the rule that alleged bias or prejudice must come from an extrajudicial source—something outside the judicial proceeding—not from the judge’s conduct or rulings in the case.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Wine’s affidavit was legally insufficient. According to the court, every example of alleged bias came from conduct or rulings in this case: delaying discovery until after the motions to dismiss, declining to decide the declaratory-relief motion without a hearing, addressing Wine’s improper emails, and continuing the motion hearing to allow consideration of extensive briefing and jurisdictional challenges.

Because Wine identified no bias or prejudice from an extrajudicial source, the court concluded that disqualification was not warranted and that the motion could be decided by Judge Spero himself.

Disposition

The court DENIED the motion to disqualify Judge Spero. The opinion did not decide the pending motions to dismiss or the merits of Wine’s underlying claims.